District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), East Delhi: While considering this consumer dispute wherein the complainant had alleged that he was sold a different laptop instead of the one he had ordered from Amazon Retail; the Bench of S.S. Malhotra (President) and Ravi Kumar (Member)*, found both Amazon and Appario Retail (OP-2) liable deficiency of service.
The DCDRC however opined that there should be a system in place by online sellers/platforms whereby photographs or videos of receiving and opening of the packet is taken by their representative/ rider /delivery person, to keep record of what is being delivered. The Commission opined that this approach would avoid many complaints in future.
Background:
On 26-12-2023 the complainant ordered HP Pavilion Laptop (407-0717207-1525901) through Amazon for Rs 61,990. The packet was delivered on 27-12-2023; however, when the complainant opened the same, he discovered that an obsolete IBM Think Pad was inside it instead of the HP laptop he had ordered. The complainant immediately contacted the Amazon Customer Care who assured that the matter would be resolved and explained him the next step for refund. The complainant was advised to take picture of the disputed product and upload the same on a link shared on the registered mobile number of the complainant which was complied by the complainant.
Thereafter the Complainant did not hear anything from Amazon and on 30-12-2023 he again called Amazon Customer Care, and he was asked to upload the Photo of the product he had received along with his name and date on a paper and send it on the link given to the Complainant through email, which was complied with. On 31-12-2023, the Complainant was informed that the return process has been initiated and the total expected refund was Rs.61,990 and the disputed product would be picked up on 01-01-2024. The disputed product was picked up on the estimated date; however, on 7-1-2024, the complainant received a message that the disputed product was “lost in transit-return not received”.
On 19-1-2024, the Complainant received email from OP1 that it would not initiate refund by stating that the Complainant had returned item that is different to the item that he had ordered and that the number of refunds in the account of the Complainant exceed the expectation and is in violation of ‘Use Policy’.
Since as per the invoice, the product was sold by Appario Retail Pvt. Ltd., the complainant’s father took up the dispute to them, but allegations were refuted by Appario Retail. Hence, the complainant approached the DCDRC.
Appario Retail contended that there was no privity of contract in between itself and the Complainant and the Complainant had booked the product directly from Amazon and that no service fee was charged by them or paid by the Complainant to them.
Commission’s Assessment:
Perusing the facts of the case, the DCDRC pointed out that it was clear the complainant received an IBM Think Pad instead of HP Pavillion laptop as ordered by him on Amazon. The DCDRC further pointed out that upon opening the package and discovering the discrepancy, the complainant lost no time to raise complaint before Amazon through their Customer Care and thereafter followed the instructions given by Amazon with reference to refund of the amount and return of the disputed product. The DCDRC also noted that Amazon’s app reflected that the disputed product was picked up for return on 1-1-2024.
The DCDRC observed that these days online purchase of product has become routine thing. Therefore, 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.
The DCDRC further stated that once the product in question was picked up by the representative of Amazon which was recorded in its App, then the responsibility of the product safely reaching them lay on Amazon; however, Amazon took a different stand altogether and request for refund was rejected on 19-01-2024 for the reason that the Complainant had returned item that was different to the item that he had ordered and there were number of refunds in the account of the complainant which exceeded expectation and was in violation of ‘Use Policy’. The DCDRC opined that this plea by Amazon, was an afterthought to escape the liability of refunding the amount, “As it had 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’”
Amazon’s reliance on the afore-stated terms which were too vague to be considered and appeared to be a mere hearsay and therefore could not be appreciated. Therefore, the deficiency in service on the part of Amazon was found to be apparent in the case.
On the issue of Appario Retail’s liability, the Commission pointed out that Appario would have received consideration amount from Amazon, which was actually paid by the complainant. Therefore, the contention of Appario that there was no privity of contract between it and the Complainant and there was no consideration paid by the Complainant to it directly, was found to be without any merit. “The product has been sold and dispatched by OP 2 (Appario) and the return process was through OP 1 (Amazon) which was followed by the Complainant”. The complainant appropriately followed the follow-up processes.
Therefore, the DCDRC found that there was a joint liability of Amazon and Appario in this case and Appario was also found deficient in service in sending a different product that too an obsolete one instead of the product which the Complainant had ordered through Amazon. The dispatch has been done through OPs and it was their duty to ensure that the product which had been dispatched, was not tampered with during the transit and reached the customer.
Holding both the Opposite Parties liable for deficiency of service, the DCDRC directed Amazon and Appario to jointly and severally refund the amount of Rs 61,990 with interest @ 9% p.a. to the Complainant from the date of payment i.e. 26-12-2023. The Opposite Parties were directed to Rs 10,000 and Rs.7500/- for mental agony and harassment and towards litigation costs respectively.
[Harjas Singh Sodhi v. Amazon Retail India Pvt. Ltd, CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. DC/78/CC/74/2024, decided on 14-8-2025]
*Judgment by Ravi Kumar (Member)
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Anushkaa Arora (Advocate) for the complainant