Failure To Refund Despite Receiving Returned Items, Bangalore District Commission Holds Amazon Liable

Brief Facts:

The Complainant placed an order for a riding jacket and a mosquito mesh on Amazon, priced at Rs. 7350/- and Rs. 799/- respectively. Dissatisfied with the products, the Complainant initiated a return request, but the Amazon pickup agent marked the product as not ready for pickup without calling. The Complainant contacted Amazon customer service which rescheduled the pickup for three days later. Subsequently, the riding jacket was marked as picked up, but the mosquito mesh was not. The Complainant repeatedly contacted Amazon's customer care team, who filed an investigation and later informed the Complainant that the riding jacket was picked up but when it reached the hub a mosquito mesh was found instead of the jacket. The Complainant was perplexed, as Amazon pickup agents typically verify the product before pickup. Amazon customer support assured the Complainant that the refund would be processed by August 16th, but on that date, they stated that an update would be provided by August 19th. When the Complainant called again on August 19th, she was told the refund was cancelled because the wrong item was sent. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (“District Commission”) against Amazon.

In response, Amazon argued that it is an intermediary as defined under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and therefore was not liable for third-party content on its marketplace. It explained that its e-commerce platform allows third-party sellers to display and sell products which is different from marketplace-based and inventory-based e-commerce models as defined by the FDI Policy. In the marketplace model, the e-commerce entity provides a platform for transactions without owning the goods.

It stated that upon receiving the Complainant's grievance, a return pickup was arranged for the mosquito mesh, but the Complainant refused it. Consequently, after the cancellation, the Complainant did not contact the customer service team which prevented the refund from being issued. As a gesture of goodwill, Amazon argued that it offered to create a return for the mosquito mesh if the Complainant approached the customer service team.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that Amazon collected the returned items, but it failed to refund the amount despite the Complainant's repeated requests. It referred to RBI directions which stated that the consideration paid by buyers on e-commerce marketplaces is directly transferred to the independent seller through a nodal account.

The District Commission noted that Amazon offers a marketplace where buyers can access products and conduct transactions which assures that products eligible for return or replacement within a specified window will be handled accordingly. It noted that the terms and conditions stated that in cases of damaged, defective, or incorrect items, the products could be returned or replaced. Therefore, the District Commission held Amazon liable for deficiency in services.

Consequently, the District Commission directed Amazon to refund the sum of Rs. 7,350/- for the riding jacket and Rs. 799/- for mosquito mesh to the Complainant. Additionally, it was ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the Complainant for the deficiency in service and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Case Title: Deepthi Bhavanam vs Amazon

Case No.: CC No. 352/2023

Advocate for the Complainant: None (Complainant in person)

Advocate for Amazon: Ms Pausi Sridhar

Date of Pronouncement: 5^th July 2024