Malappuram District Commission Holds Amazon And Its Seller Liable For Failure To Issue Promised Refund For Unsatisfactory Product
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Malappuram (Kerala) bench of Mohandasan K (President), Mohamed Ismayil (Member) and Preethi Sivaraman (Member) held Amazon and Appario Retail liable for deficiency in services for their failure to issue a refund despite receiving the returned product from the Complainant. Brief Facts: The Complainant ordered a Juke bar sound bar with...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Malappuram (Kerala) bench of Mohandasan K (President), Mohamed Ismayil (Member) and Preethi Sivaraman (Member) held Amazon and Appario Retail liable for deficiency in services for their failure to issue a refund despite receiving the returned product from the Complainant.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant ordered a Juke bar sound bar with a sub-woofer from Appario Retail (“Seller”) through Amazon's website, using the credit card of his friend. The product was delivered on 15/07/2023 around 4:50 PM, and installation was scheduled for five days later. However, upon installation, the Complainant found the sound clarity unsatisfactory which prompted him to return the product. The product was collected on 24/07/2023 with assurances of a refund within five days.
Subsequently, after two weeks passed without any refund, the Complainant contacted Amazon customer service, only to be informed that the product was not received back. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Malappuram, Kerala (“District Commission”) against Amazon and the Seller.
Amazon argued that the Complainant's transaction was with the Seller. It clarified that payments on its platform are directly made to sellers via a nodal account as per RBI guidelines which absolved Amazon of responsibility for refund issues. It maintained that it provides an intermediary E-commerce marketplace, facilitating transactions between buyers and independent third-party sellers. It contended the return process for the product was cancelled before completion, hence no refund was issued. The Seller didn't appear before the District Commission for proceedings.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission noted that there was no contradictory evidence presented by Amazon and its Seller to dispute the Complainant's claims. It held that while Amazon argued that it is merely an intermediary, its acknowledgement of the Complainant's request for a refund indicated its involvement and awareness of the transaction details. This acknowledgement aligned with the Complainant's narrative that he returned the product due to poor sound clarity shortly after installation, which occurred five days after purchase.
Therefore, the District Commission held that there was a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Amazon and its Seller. Consequently, the District Commission directed Amazon and its seller to refund Rs. 18,999/-, pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 2000/- for the litigation costs.
Case Title: Bineesh A vs Amazon India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Case Number: CC/493/2023
Date of Pronouncement: 29th April 2024