Failing To Refund Returned Mattress; Kangra Consumer Commission Holds Amazon Liable

Facts

The complainant, Shubham Patial, placed a prepaid order on Amazon on September 26, 2024, for a Wakefit Shape Sense Orthopedic Classic Mattress. Although the listed price of the mattress was ₹9,799, he paid ₹8,819.10 after availing a bank discount through an online Visa card transaction. When the shipment was not delivered within the stipulated time, the complainant contacted Delhivery Company Pvt. Ltd., the logistics partner responsible for delivery.

The complainant alleged that Delhivery suggested cancelling the order through an OTP. Consequently, the order was cancelled on October 7, 2024. Tracking records later confirmed that the consignment had been returned to the seller and reached the consignor at Faridabad on October 16, 2024. However, despite Amazon assuring that the refund would be processed, the application reflected a "Total expected refund" of ₹0.00, and no refund was credited despite repeated follow-ups through emails and telephone calls.

Aggrieved by the non-refund, the complainant approached the Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service.

Contentions of the Parties

Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 1) failed to appear before the Commission despite service of notice and was proceeded ex parte.

Delhivery Company Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 2) contested the complaint, submitting that it had attempted delivery on October 1, 2024, but the complainant subsequently opted for cancellation through OTP verification. It contended that after cancellation, the consignment was safely returned to the seller on October 16, 2024. Delhivery argued that the responsibility for processing refunds rested exclusively with the marketplace (Amazon) and the seller, and that there was no contractual relationship between the complainant and the courier company in respect of financial refunds.

Observations & Decision

The Commission examined the documentary evidence and found that the shipment had been marked "Undelivered" before being cancelled through OTP on October 7, 2024. The tracking records established that the product was successfully returned to the consignor on October 16, 2024. The Commission noted that although Amazon's application assured the complainant that the refund would be issued shortly, the refund summary inexplicably displayed an expected refund of ₹0.00, even after the returned merchandise had reached the seller.

The Commission observed that Amazon had chosen to remain ex parte, leaving the complainant's evidence completely unrebutted. It held that Amazon's failure to refund the amount for an undelivered and returned order constituted a clear deficiency in service as well as an unfair trade practice.

With respect to Delhivery, the Commission found that its role was confined to logistics and that it had duly returned the consignment to the seller. Since the courier company had no responsibility for processing the financial refund, no deficiency in service could be attributed to it.

Accordingly, the Commission allowed the complaint against Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. and directed it to refund ₹8,819.10 to the complainant along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until realization. Amazon was further directed to pay ₹5,000 as compensation for the harassment caused to the complainant and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs. The complaint against Delhivery Company Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed.

Case Title: Shubham Patial v. Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. DC/18/CC/62/2025

Appearances:

For the Complainant: Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate

For Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order