Consumer Court Ruling: Amazon and Seller Held Accountable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Darjeeling has ordered Amazon and one of its sellers to pay a combined compensation of ₹4.68 lakh to a customer. This decision followed a complaint where the customer, Soloman Lepcha, was denied a refund after returning a wrongly delivered product. The case, titled Soloman Lepcha v Amazon Seller Services Private Ltd. & Anr., highlighted significant service deficiencies and unfair trade practices.
Wrongful Delivery and Denial of Refund
The complaint centered around the purchase of a Fujifilm X-T5 digital camera, valued at ₹1.43 lakh, ordered through Amazon. However, upon delivery on February 10, 2025, Lepcha received a different model, the Fujifilm X-T50. Upon contacting customer support, he was instructed to return the item with the assurance of a refund. Despite returning the product, his refund claim was denied on the grounds that the wrong item was returned.
Commission’s Findings and Order
The Commission, led by President Tikendra Narayan Pradhan and Member Bhawana Thakuri, found Amazon and its seller guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The absence of a rebuttal from the defendants meant that the complainant’s evidence went unchallenged. The Commission stated, “We are of the view that the complainants have been able to make out their case against the O.Ps (Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and its seller), and they are entitled to get the relief as prayed for.”
The ruling included a directive for the parties to refund ₹1.43 lakh, the cost of the camera, along with additional compensation. This compensation comprised ₹2,00,000 for mental harassment and agony, ₹1,00,000 for negligence and deficiency in service, and ₹25,000 for litigation costs. Furthermore, the entire amount is subject to 9% annual interest from the date of filing the complaint until full payment.
Unanswered Claims and Legal Implications
The commission noted that Amazon’s defense of being merely an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000, was insufficient. The complainant successfully argued that Amazon exerted considerable control over the transaction process, which included listings, payments, delivery logistics, and returns. The Commission remarked, “There is nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. There is also nothing to disbelieve the documents filed by the complainant as those documents remained unchallenged.”
More Read
The legal team for the complainant included Advocates Sunam Sharma, Pallav Sharma, and Suraj Mohanta. This case underscores the accountability of e-commerce platforms in ensuring accurate transactions and the protection of consumer rights.
