Failure To Initiate Refund Despite Receiving Wrongly Delivered TV Back, Bangalore Urban District Commission Holds Amazon Liable

The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Urban Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), V. Anuradha (Member) and Renukadevi Deshpande (Member) held Amazon liable for failure to initiate a refund after the wrongly delivered Samsung T.V. was returned to the Seller. It was directed to initiate the refund, and pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- for litigation costs to the Complainants. Brief Facts: The Complainants ordered a Samsung TV from Amazon, making the payment via credit card through the Amazon payment portal. Upon receiving the product, they discovered it was a different model than the one they had ordered. Promptly, they requested a return through the Amazon application, which was accepted by Amazon via email, with a promise of a refund to the original payment method. Despite the acceptance of the return request, the Complainants did not receive the refund even after waiting for 40 days from the date of the email confirmation. Subsequently, the Complainants sent legal notices to Amazon but didn't receive a satisfactory response. Feeling aggrieved, they filed a consumer complaint in the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Urban Bangalore ("District Commission") against Amazon. In response, Amazon contended that upon receiving the complaint about the wrong product, the Complainants were advised to self-ship it back for replacement, with the shipping cost to be borne by the Complainants but refunded upon proof of expenditure. It argued that the self-shipped product did not reach the seller and therefore, it was justified in not issuing a refund. Additionally, Amazon argued that its role is limited as an intermediary in the e-commerce marketplace and contended that the Complainants were not its consumers. Observations by the District Commission: The District Commission noted Amazon's argument that the seller didn't receive the returned product from the Complainants. However, it held that Amazon failed to present compelling proof to demonstrate that the Complainants did not return the product as directed. The Commission stated that Amazon neglected to furnish an affidavit from its seller to corroborate its claim regarding the non-receipt of the returned product. Therefore, the District Commission held Amazon liable for deficiency in service by failing to refund the amount paid by the Complainants for the Samsung TV, despite the product being returned. Consequently, the District Commission directed Amazon to refund Rs. 59,990/- along with 8% interest per annum from the date of payment made by the Complainant. Additionally, it was directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental anguish and Rs. 2,000/- for the litigation costs.Case Title: Shamanth K vs Amazon Click Here To Read/Download Order

Failure To Initiate Refund Despite Receiving Wrongly Delivered TV Back, Bangalore Urban District Commission Holds Amazon Liable

Smita Singh

Tags