Consumer court orders Amazon, seller to pay customer ₹4.68 lakh for...

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Darjeeling recently directed Amazon and a seller who listing a camera on the online platform to pay ₹4.68 lakh compensation and refund to a customer who was denied a refund even after returning a wrongly delivered product [Soloman Lepcha v Amazon Seller Services Private Ltd. & Anr.].

A comram of President Tikendra Narayan Pradhan and Member Bhawana Thakuri held Amazon and its seller liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for delivering the wrong camera model and then denying a refund to the consumer despite the return of the item.

After noting that the e-commerce platform and its seller chose not to appear or contest the proceedings, resulting in the complainant’s version and evidence going unrebutted, the Commission held,

“We are of the view that the complainants have been able to made out there case against the O.Ps (Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and its seller) and they are entitled to get the relief as prayed for.”

Allowing the complaint, the Commission directed the opposite parties to refund ₹1.43 lakh, being the cost of the camera, along with compensation under multiple heads.

“The O.ps (Amazon, its seller) are also directed to pay a sum of Rs2,00,000/- for mental harassment and agony and further the sum of Rs1,00,000 for negligence and deficiency of service and Rs 25,000/- for litigation cost within 45 days from the date of this order,” it said.

The Commission further ordered that the entire amount would carry interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until realisation.

The dispute arose after the complainant ordered a Fujifilm X-T5 digital camera worth ₹1.43 lakh through Amazon’s platform from a listed seller. Upon delivery on February 10, 2025, he found that the product supplied was a different model, namely, a Fujifilm X-T50.

The complainant promptly contacted customer support and was advised to return the item, with an assurance that a refund would be processed.

The product was collected from the complainant and received by the seller. However, when he checked the refund status, he was informed that the claim could not be processed because the returned item was “incorrect."

Subsequent communications, including emails, reiterated this position and even classified the issue as involving a “used or damaged item”, rather than acknowledging it as a case of wrong delivery.

The complainant continued to pursue the matter, submitting emails along with photographic evidence showing discrepancies in packaging labels, including dual tags indicating different models. Despite this, the refund was rejected, and the returned product was not sent back either.

A legal notice issued to the parties also failed to resolve the dispute, prompting the consumer to approach the Commission.

In its defence, Amazon claimed that it functioned merely as an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000. The complainant, however, argued that the platform exercised significant control over transactions, including listings, payments, delivery logistics and returns, and could not evade responsibility in such circumstances.

Underscoring that the evidence on record stood uncontested due to the absence of any written version or appearance by Amazon and the seller, the Commission observed,

“There is nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. There is also nothing to disbelieve the documents filed by the complainant has those documents remained unchallenged.”

Advocates Sunam Sharma, Pallav Sharma and Suraj Mohanta appeared for the customer (complaint).

[Read Judgement]