An Indian consumer court has directed Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. to pay a total of ₹18,819 to a customer from Himachal Pradesh after failing to process a refund for a cancelled mattress order. The ruling, issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala, concluded that Amazon's actions amounted to a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
The Customer's Complaint Against Amazon
The case originated when Shubham Patial placed a prepaid order on Amazon on September 26, 2024, for a Wakefit Shape Sense Orthopedic Classic Mattress. The mattress, listed at ₹9,799, was purchased for ₹8,819.10 after a bank discount applied during an online Visa card transaction.
When the order was not delivered within the expected timeframe, Patial contacted Delhivery Company Pvt. Ltd., Amazon's logistics partner. Following Delhivery's advice, Patial cancelled the order via an OTP on October 7, 2024. Tracking records confirmed that the consignment was subsequently returned to the seller in Faridabad by October 16, 2024.
Despite repeated assurances from Amazon that a refund would be processed, Patial's order summary continued to show a "Total expected refund" of ₹0.00. Faced with no refund after numerous attempts to contact Amazon, Patial filed a complaint with the Consumer Commission.
Amazon's Non-Appearance and Delhivery's Defense
Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. was listed as Opposite Party No. 1 in the complaint. Despite being served notice, Amazon failed to appear before the Commission and was therefore proceeded against ex parte.
Delhivery Company Pvt. Ltd., listed as Opposite Party No. 2, contested the complaint. The courier company stated that it had attempted delivery on October 1, 2024, and the customer subsequently opted to cancel the order. Delhivery successfully returned the shipment to the seller on October 16, 2024, arguing that the refund processing was the responsibility of Amazon and the seller, not the logistics partner.
Commission Finds Amazon Responsible
After reviewing the documentary evidence, including shipment tracking records, the Commission found that the mattress was indeed marked "Undelivered" before the cancellation and was returned to the consignor. The Commission noted that Amazon's application had initially assured Patial of a prompt refund, yet the refund summary remained at ₹0.00 even after the product's return.
Given Amazon's failure to present its case, the evidence provided by Patial remained uncontested. The Commission concluded that Amazon's retention of payment for an undelivered and returned order constituted a clear deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. Delhivery, however, was absolved of responsibility, as its role was limited to logistics and it had duly returned the consignment.
The Final Order
The complaint against Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. was upheld, with the Commission directing the company to:
- Refund the original amount of ₹8,819.10 to Shubham Patial.
- Pay interest at 9% per annum on the refund amount from the date of filing the complaint until it is realized.
- Pay ₹5,000 as compensation for the harassment caused to the complainant.
- Pay ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.
The total amount Amazon is ordered to pay, including the refund, compensation, and litigation costs, comes to approximately ₹18,819.10, plus interest.