Jodhpur District Commission Holds Amazon Liable For Failure To Initiate Refund Despite Receiving Returned Product

Brief Facts:

The Complainant ordered a OnePlus mobile phone online from Amazon. The Complainant paid Rs. 34,999/- for the phone, which was transferred from his account to Amazon's account online. The Complainant received the mobile phone in few days. However, upon using the phone, it exhibited various defects. Amazon then sent a new mobile phone to the Complainant, but this replacement also began showing technical issues over time. When he complained again, an engineer from Amazon inspected the phone and confirmed that it could not be repaired. Consequently, the Complainant informed Amazon through its toll-free number that he wished to return the mobile phone, and Amazon's delivery boy collected it in few days. Amazon acknowledged receipt of the mobile phone on the same day via its Gmail account. However, when the Complainant requested a refund, Amazon claimed that it didn't receive the phone sent by the Complainant. Thus, Amazon refused to refund the amount for the mobile phone. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (II), Jodhpur, Rajasthan (“District Commission”) against Amazon.

Amazon contended that it does not sell any products and, as an online marketplace, is not responsible for any issues. It argued that it did not receive any money for the sale. Further, its investigation team reported that a different product, not the original one, was received from the Complainant, which is why no refund was issued.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that the Complainant was informed by Amazon about the receipt of the returned mobile phone and was assured that the refund would be processed soon. Therefore, the District Commission held that Amazon was fully responsible as representative of the seller due to its involvement in displaying the mobile phone sale proposal on its portal, receiving the order, obtaining payment online, and managing the return and refund process.

The District Commission noted that after Amazon notified the Complainant about receiving the returned mobile phone, Amazon assured him of the refund, but later refused to make the payment. The District Commission held that this constituted unfair trade practice and a deficiency in service on the part of Amazon.

Consequently, the District Commission directed Amazon to refund the Complainant an amount of Rs. 34,999/- for the mobile phone along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Amazon was also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant for compensation and litigation expenses.

Case Title: Premraj vs Amazon and Ors.

Case Number: 392/2018

Date of Decision: 21.05.2024