A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Delhi recently ordered e-commerce platform Amazon and a laptop seller Appario Retail to refund and compensate a consumer for delivering a wrong item instead of the laptop he ordered [Harjas Singh Sodhi Vs Amazon Retail India Pvt. Ltd.].

It also rejected the "vague" reasons earlier cited by Amazon's customer care to reject the customer's request for a refund.

The Bench presided by President SS Malhotra and Member Ravi Kumar stated that it is the duty of the e-commerce platform to ensure that the correct product as displayed on the website is delivered to the consumers. 

“These days online purchase of product has become routine thing and customers are purchasing many items through various platforms like OP1 and Flipkart etc. It is the duty of the online platform which is offering such services to ensure that correct product is delivered by the seller who is having business to business contract with them. Whatever product is displayed at the online platform should be provided when ordered which has not happened in this case,” the consumer forum stated.

The commission went on to note that online shopping delivery platforms should have a protocol in place to ensure that the correct product is delivered to the consumer. This could be done by photographing the delivery process, it suggested.

“There should be a system in place by online sellers/platforms that photographs / video of receiving and opening of the packet is taken by their representative/ rider /delivery person to keep record of what is being delivered which will avoid many complaints in future,” the order stated.

The customer, one Harjas Singh Sodhi, claimed that he had ordered an HP Pavilion Laptop from Amazon. However, he was instead delivered an obsolete IBM Think Pad.

Sodhi then contacted the Customer Care of Amazon with a complaint about the same, after which the laptop was returned. However, the amount of ₹61,990 which he paid for the laptop was not refunded to him. 

Amazon informed Sodhi that it would not initiate a refund on the ground that Sodhi had returned a different item and that the number of refunds in his account exceeded the expectation and is in violation of its ‘Use Policy.' 

Sodhi then approached the consumer court for relief.

The consumer forum observed that Sodhi gave sufficient evidence by photographs of having received the wrong product (IBM Think Pad) immediately after he opened the packet, and that the same was alerted to Amazon. Amazon and Appario were held jointly liable to compensate Sodhi for the error.

“There is a joint liability of OP1 and OP2 in this case and OP2 is also found deficient in service in sending a different product that too an obsolete one instead of the product which the Complainant has ordered through OP1. The dispatch has been done through OPs and it is their duty to ensure that the product which has been dispatched has not been tampered with during the transit and reaches the customer intact who had ordered,” the consumer forum stated. 

The commission also observed that Amazon had tried to escape its liability to refund Sodhi by giving a vague reason for rejecting the request for a refund, that is, that Sodhi allegedly placed too many refund requests.

“This plea of OP1 [Amazon], according to the Commission, is an afterthought to escape the liability of refunding the amount as OP1 has not provided any details as to how many number of refunds were there in the account of the Complainant and what was their expectation which got exceeded and what is the ‘Use Policy’ OP1 is relying on and all these terms which are too vague to be considered and appears to be a mere hearsay and therefore cannot be appreciated. Therefore, the deficiency in service on the part of OP1 is apparent in the case,” the consumer commission stated. 

With respect to the laptop seller, Appario, the commission stated that since Appario had received consideration (the price paid for the laptop), it cannot now claim that it had no contractual obligation towards Sodhi.

It proceeded to order Amazon and Appario to refund the amount of ₹61,990 (laptop price) with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of payment.

They were also ordered to pay ₹10,000 towards mental agony and harassment and ₹7,500 towards the litigation costs incurred by Sodhi in approaching the consumer forum.

Advocate Anushkaa Arora appeared for the complainant (Sodhi).

[Read Order]