Darjeeling District Consumer Commission directed Amazon and its seller to refund Rs 1,43,000 and pay Rs 3,25,000 in compensation after delivering a wrong camera model and refusing to refund.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Darjeeling, has directed Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and its registered seller Clicktech Retail Private Limited to refund the purchase price of Rs 1,43,000 and pay an aggregate of Rs 3,25,000 in compensation and litigation costs to a consumer from whom a wrong camera model was delivered, the returned product was retained without refund, and whose legitimate grievance was repeatedly deflected through fabricated justifications.
The order, delivered on June 18, 2026, by President Sri Tikendra Narayan Pradhan and Member Smt. Bhawana Thakuri, holds both opposite parties jointly liable for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, and gross negligence, proceeding ex parte against both after they failed to appear and contest the complaint.
Background
The complainant, ordered a Fujifilm X-T5 40M APS-C X-Trans sensor digital camera worth Rs 1,43,000 through the Amazon platform. When the delivery was received, the complainant found that the product delivered was not the Fujifilm X-T5 that he had ordered but a different and inferior product. The mismatch was evident from the packaging itself, which bore two conflicting labels.
Upon informing the opposite parties of the wrong delivery, the complainant was asked to return the article and was assured of a full refund. Opposite Party No. 1 collected the item from the complainant's residence. However, when the complainant checked the refund status, he was falsely informed that the refund could not be processed because the return item was incorrect. An email received from Amazon incorrectly flagged the issue as a case of a received, used, and damaged item rather than a wrong item delivery. His further claims and replies were also arbitrarily rejected.
Arguments
Aggrieved by the continued inaction, the complainant issued a legal notice to Amazon. In response, Amazon denied liability, claiming that it acted only as an intermediary under Section 2(1)(w) read with Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The complainant, through a detailed rejoinder dated May 5, 2025, disputed this defence and reiterated the demand for appropriate relief. Thereafter, the consumer complaint was filed on June 23, 2025.
Following the filing of the complaint, Amazon submitted further replies dated June 22, 2025 and July 22, 2025, once again relying upon the intermediary protection under the IT Act.
The complainant argued that Amazon could not claim the status of a mere intermediary as it actively controls and facilitates several essential aspects of the transaction, including product listings, payment processing, delivery arrangements, return management, and issuance of invoices.
It was further submitted that Amazon’s reliance on tamper-proof packaging and OTP-based delivery confirmation was misplaced, as the dispute was not regarding package tampering but the delivery of an entirely different product. The complainant also contended that Amazon could not deny consumer remedies by simply classifying the consumer as abusive.
Opposite Party No. 2, despite being the seller and recipient of the returned product, did not file any response or take steps to resolve the grievance.
Analysis
Despite due service of notice, neither opposite party appeared before the Commission nor filed any written version against the complaint. The case accordingly proceeded ex parte.
The Commission noted that the failure of the opposite parties to appear and contest the complaint had rendered the complainant's case uncontroverted. Having perused the complaint petition, the evidence-in-chief adduced by the complainant supported by affidavit, the Brief Notes of Argument filed, and the original documents placed on record the Commission found nothing to disbelieve the testimony of the complainant or the documentary evidence placed before it. The Commission held that the complainants had made out their case against the opposite parties and were entitled to the relief claimed.
The Commission found that the opposite parties were guilty of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, and gross negligence. The product delivered was a different model from the one ordered, the returned product was taken back by the opposite parties and retained by them without processing the refund, and the complainant's repeated attempts to obtain redressal were met with fabricated justifications and blanket refusals.
Conclusion
The Commission directed the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs 1,43,000 being the cost of the ordered camera to the complainant within 45 days from the date of the order.
The opposite parties were additionally directed to pay Rs 2,00,000 for mental harassment and agony, Rs 1,00,000 for negligence and deficiency of service, and Rs 25,000 towards litigation costs, all within 45 days from the date of the order. All sums awarded were directed to carry interest at nine per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until realisation.
The Commission further held that in the event of failure to comply with the above directions within the stipulated time, the complainant would be at liberty to put the order into execution following the due process of law.
Case Title: Soloman Namphok Lepcha & Anr. v. Amazon Seller Services Private Ltd & Anr (Consumer Complaint No. 09/2025)
