District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal: A consumer complaint was filed by Rounak Burrows (complainant) against Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party 1) and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., (Opposite Party 2) seeking a refund of ₹1,29,990, compensation for mental agony and harassment, and litigation costs, alleging that a laptop purchased through Amazon’s online platform was not delivered and that the package instead contained electronic waste (e-waste). Yogesh Dutt Shukla (President) and Sanjay Singh (Member) held Amazon liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, while dismissing the complaint against Samsung.
Background
The complainant stated that he ordered a Samsung Galaxy Book2 Pro 360 laptop, priced at ₹1,29,990, through Amazon on 29 May 2023. The package was delivered on 2 June 2023. Although the package appeared sealed, he alleged that, upon opening it, he found electronic waste or scrap material instead of the laptop. He complained to Amazon and also approached the police. According to the complaint, Amazon did not provide the laptop or refund the amount paid, prompting him to initiate proceedings under Section 35, Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Amazon denied the allegations and submitted that it operated an e-commerce marketplace rather than acting as the actual seller of the product. It also contended that delivery had been confirmed through OTP-based verification. It stated that the laptop had been sold by Appario Retail Pvt. Ltd. and contended that the seller was a necessary party to the proceedings. Amazon further argued that the complainant had not established any deficiency in its services and that the complaint was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party.
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. also disputed liability, contending that the transaction had taken place through Amazon and that the complainant had not purchased the laptop directly from Samsung. It submitted that the dispute concerned the delivery of the product and the transaction between the complainant and Amazon.
Issues
The issue under consideration was whether the complainant qualified as a consumer, whether the opposite parties were guilty of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, and what relief, if any, the complainant was entitled to.
Analysis and decision
On the question of consumer status, the Commission held that the complainant had purchased the laptop through Amazon’s online platform for personal use and was therefore a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(7), Consumer Protection Act. It observed that the complainant had paid the purchase price and that the transaction was not shown to have been undertaken for a commercial purpose.
The Commission rejected Amazon’s contention that it could avoid responsibility merely by describing itself as an intermediary marketplace. It took note of Amazon’s role in facilitating the online transaction and delivery and observed that the complainant had not received the laptop despite paying the full purchase price. The Commission also considered the complainant’s evidence and the response submitted by Amazon concerning the transaction and the alleged delivery of the product.
The Commission found that Amazon had not provided adequate information about the seller, Appario Retail Pvt. Ltd., and had failed to satisfactorily resolve the complainant’s grievance and held it liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and directed it to refund ₹1,29,990, together with interest at 9 per cent per annum from 29 May 2023 until payment.
The Commission further directed Amazon to pay ₹25,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment, and ₹5000 towards litigation costs. These amounts were directed to be paid within 45 days of receipt of the order. In the event of non-compliance within that period, interest at 9 per cent per annum would be payable from the date of the order until payment. The Commission also directed payment of an additional ₹5000 towards the costs of execution proceedings if the complainant had to initiate execution to enforce the order.
The complaint against Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed, as the Commission did not find deficiency in service established against it based on the material placed before it.
[Rounak Burrows v. Amazon Seller Services (P) Ltd., Consumer Complaint No. CC/496/2023, decided on 15-10-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the complainant: Mr. Terrence Baros, Advocate.
For Amazon: Mr. Naved Sayyed, Advocate.
For Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd: Mr. Shivam Kumar Singh, Advocate.
