A consumer commission in Darjeeling has held Amazon and one of its marketplace sellers responsible for failing to refund a customer who received the wrong camera model, directing them to pay a total of ₹4.68 lakh along with interest.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found both the e-commerce platform and the seller guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices after a buyer was denied a refund despite returning the product that had been incorrectly delivered.
The bench, comprising President Tikendra Narayan Pradhan and Member Bhawana Thakuri, noted that neither Amazon nor the seller appeared before the Commission to contest the complaint. As a result, the customer’s evidence and claims remained unchallenged.
According to the order, the complainant successfully established his case and was entitled to the relief sought.
The Commission directed the parties to refund ₹1.43 lakh, the amount paid for the camera. In addition, it awarded ₹2 lakh for mental agony and harassment, ₹1 lakh for negligence and deficiency in service, and ₹25,000 towards litigation expenses.
The entire amount will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date the complaint was filed until the payment is made.
How the dispute unfolded
The case stemmed from an online purchase of a Fujifilm X-T5 camera priced at ₹1.43 lakh. After receiving the package on February 10, 2025, the buyer discovered that the product inside was not the camera he had ordered. Instead, he had been sent a Fujifilm X-T50.
The customer immediately contacted support services and was instructed to return the item, with assurances that a refund would follow.
The camera was collected and delivered back to the seller. However, when the buyer checked the status of his refund request, he was informed that the claim had been rejected because the returned product was allegedly not the correct item.
Subsequent communications maintained the same position. At one stage, the issue was reportedly treated as involving a used or damaged product rather than a mistaken delivery.
The complainant continued pressing his case and submitted emails and photographs that allegedly showed inconsistencies in the packaging labels, including tags indicating different camera models. Despite these efforts, the refund remained denied and the returned camera was not sent back to him.
After a legal notice failed to resolve the matter, he approached the consumer commission.
Commission rejects defence
During the proceedings, Amazon argued that it functioned merely as an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The complainant countered that the platform exercised substantial control over key aspects of the transaction, including product listings, payments, delivery arrangements and return processes, making it accountable for the dispute.
The Commission ultimately emphasized that the evidence presented by the customer stood unrebutted because neither Amazon nor the seller filed a written response or appeared before it.
Finding no reason to doubt the complainant’s testimony or the documentary evidence placed on record, the Commission ruled in his favour and granted the compensation and refund sought.
