The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bhopal, comprising President Yoge Dutt Shukla and Member Dr. Sanjeev Singh, has directed Amazon Seller Services Private Limited to refund the purchase amount to a consumer who alleged that electronic waste was delivered instead of a Samsung Galaxy Book 2 Pro 360 laptop purchased through its platform, along with interest and compensation. The Commission held Amazon liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, observing that it had failed to satisfactorily resolve the consumer's grievance and establish that the laptop had actually been delivered.

Facts:

The complainant, Shri Rounak Burrows, purchased a Samsung Galaxy Book 2 Pro 360 laptop worth ₹1,29,990 through Amazon on May 29, 2023. The laptop was delivered on June 2, 2023, but upon opening the sealed package, he allegedly found that the laptop was missing and that the package contained electronic waste instead.

The complainant raised a grievance with Amazon on June 12, 2023. Amazon, however, denied the claim, stating that the product had been sold by a third-party seller, Appario Retail Private Limited, and that its records showed the item had been delivered. The complainant alleged that despite repeated efforts, neither the laptop nor a refund was provided.

Aggrieved by the alleged deficiency in service, the complainant filed a consumer complaint against Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and Samsung India Electronics Private Limited.

Contentions of the opposite parties:

Amazon argued that it operated an e-commerce marketplace and was not the actual seller or manufacturer of the laptop. It contended that the transaction was undertaken with Appario Retail Private Limited, which had not been impleaded as a party. Amazon further claimed that the laptop had been delivered after OTP-based verification and that it could not be held liable for the alleged non-delivery.

Samsung India Electronics Private Limited denied any direct role in the transaction, arguing that the laptop was purchased through Amazon and that the dispute primarily concerned the alleged non-delivery of the product. It contended that no deficiency in service had been established against it.

Observations and Decision:

The Commission observed that OTP-based delivery verification did not, by itself, establish that the laptop had actually been delivered. It also noted that Amazon had failed to provide adequate information regarding Appario Retail Private Limited, the alleged seller, or satisfactorily resolve the complainant's grievance.

The Commission held that Amazon could not escape responsibility merely by claiming to operate as an e-commerce marketplace. It found Amazon liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

However, the Commission found insufficient grounds to hold Samsung India Electronics Private Limited liable, as the dispute primarily concerned the online transaction and delivery of the laptop.

Consequently, the Commission partly allowed the complaint against Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and dismissed it against Samsung India Electronics Private Limited. It directed Amazon to refund ₹1,29,990, along with 9% annual interest from May 29, 2023, until repayment. Amazon was also directed to pay ₹25,000 as compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.

The Commission directed Amazon to comply with the order within 45 days of receiving it. In the event of non-compliance, the order provides for an additional ₹5,000 towards execution costs, along with the interest payable under the order.