Hyderabad District Commission Holds Amazon And 3rd-Party Seller For Delivery Of Wrong Product And Failure To Return

Brief Facts:

Dr Poona Srinivas (“Complainant”) purchased a Boat Smart Watch with Model No. Xtend/Xtend RTL Smart Watch with Alexa Built-in 1.69 from Appario Retail Private Limited (“Seller”), via the online shopping site, Amazon, for Rs. 3,499. The smartwatch, as per the website, was advertised in Sandy Cream colour, but upon delivery, it was pink in colour. Dissatisfied with the discrepancy, the Complainant initiated a return, providing the watch, inside packing, box, and cover for the return. The individual assigned for the pickup captured an image of the return watch and assured the Complainant that a refund would be processed. However, she didn't receive any refund. She contacted Amazon's customer care but the customer care representative accused the Complainant of returning a different smartwatch, thereby justifying the denial of a refund. Despite numerous emails from the Complainant seeking resolution, Amazon accused the Complainant of cheating and did not address the issue. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad, Telangana (“District Commission”).

In response, Amazon contended that it is not responsible for the payment and acts as an intermediary. The product was delivered to the Complainant in intact condition on October 25, 2022, with a secure one-time password. When the complaint was received, the watch was promptly picked up on October 29, 2022. However, it claimed that the Complainant returned an incorrect/wrong product instead of the original delivered one.

Despite being served a notice, the seller failed to file a written version, resulting in an ex-parte order against it.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission referred to Amazon's return policy which was very clear that returns would be processed if the product was undamaged, not different from what was shipped, and returned in its original condition. It was clear from the return policy and facts of the complaint that the pickup person verified the item with the details which are available to him and after his satisfaction only, the person authorized to pick up the return, otherwise the item would not move if he was not satisfied with the details available with him.

The District Commission rejected Amazon's attempt to shift blame solely on the seller, noting that Amazon's status as an intermediary did not absolve it from the responsibility to refund the amount. Further, it noted that after receiving the item, it was the duty of Amazon to refund the amount, therefore, there was a clear deficiency of service by Amazon and the seller.

Consequently, the District Commission directed Amazon and the seller to refund Rs. 3,499/- and pay Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and the suffering caused to the Complainant. They were also directed to pay Rs 5,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.

Case Title: Dr. Ponna Srinivas vs Amazon Hyderabad and Anr.

Case No.: Consumer Case No.100 OF 2023

Advocate for the Complainant: Party in Person

Advocate for the Respondent: Rajan Sri Krishnan and D. Madhavi