Brief Facts

The complainant, Soloman Lepcha, ordered a Fujifilm X-T5 40 MP APS-C X-Trans sensor mirrorless camera worth Rs. 1,43,000/- through Amazon Seller Service Private Limited (OP No. 1) from the registered seller, Clicktech Retail Private Ltd. (OP No. 2). The camera was delivered on 10-02-2025. However, upon opening the package, the complainant discovered that, instead of the ordered Fujifilm X-T5, a Fujifilm X-T50 CS WW2 camera had been delivered. The complainant also found that the package bore two conflicting labels, one label identifying the product as an X-T50 and another, smaller sticker describing it as an X-T5.

The complainant immediately informed the Opposite Parties of the incorrect delivery. They agreed to accept the return and process a refund. Accordingly, the camera was collected from the complainant's residence and was received by the seller on 20-02-2025. However, despite receiving the returned product, the Opposite Parties refused to refund Rs. 1,43,000/-.

The complainant again contacted customer support and was falsely informed that an investigation had cleared the Opposite Parties of any fault, even though no genuine investigation appeared to have been conducted. Instead, the Opposite Parties alleged that the complainant had returned the wrong product.

On 21-02-2025, OP No. 1 sent an email stating that the returned item was "used and damaged" instead of acknowledging that the wrong product had been delivered. Although the complainant subsequently submitted photographs showing the conflicting labels on the package, the refund request was rejected without assigning any valid reason.

Aggrieved by OPs failure to refund the amount after receiving the returned product, the complainant filed the present complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Darjeeling, seeking a refund and compensation.

The Opposite Parties failed to appear in court or file a formal Written Version during the actual commission proceedings which resulted in the case proceeding ex-parte.

Observations by the Commission

The District Commission, in its order, observed that, despite being duly served with notice, the Opposite Parties failed to appear before it or contest the proceedings. Consequently, the Commission held that the complainant's pleadings and evidence remained unchallenged. The Commission, upon examining the complaint and the evidence on record, found no reason to disbelieve the complainant's testimony and held that he had successfully established his case against the Opposite Parties.

Accordingly, the Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, to:

• Refund Rs. 1,43,000/- towards the cost of the camera.
• Pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.
• Pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for negligence and deficiency in service.
• Pay Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation costs.