Udaipur District Commission Holds Amazon Liable For Deficiency In Service For Failure To Refund Purchase Amount After Receiving Returned Product

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udaipur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Shri Prakash Chandra Pagaria (President) and Shri Jai Dixit (Member) directed Amazon to refund the purchase price of the shoes returned by the Complainant. The District Commission held that Amazon did not make an effort to clarify its contention regarding the return of the wrong product by the Complainant and its failure to refund any amount constituted a deficiency in service. The shoe manufacturer was not held liable for the same. Brief Facts: Mr. Kiran Bagdi (“Complainant”) purchased a pair of shoes produced by Red Tape International Private Limited (“Red Tape”) from the website of Amazon.in (“Amazon”). The Complainant received a confirmation for the order on the same day. Upon the arrival of the delivery person, the Complainant was asked to make a payment of ₹ 1560, to which he contested stating that the invoice received from Amazon indicated a price of ₹ 1559. In response, the delivery person stated that, despite the invoice amount, the Complainant was obligated to pay ₹ 1560. Eventually, the Complainant made the payment online, though the issued invoice reflected a sum of ₹ 1559. The Complainant eventually returned the shoes but didn't receive a refund for the same. After the Complainant sent the shoes back for return, Amazon informed him through a message that a refund of ₹ 1559 would be credited to his account within 3 to 5 business days. Later, Amazon sent another message claiming that the Complainant sent the wrong item and requested the correct item. Thereafter, the Complainant made several communications with Amazon but didn't receive a satisfactory reply. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Commission and filed a consumer complaint against Amazon and Red Tape. Amazon and Red Tape didn't appear before the District Commission. Therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte. Observations by the Commission: The District Commission noted that the Complainant didn't present any photos or details regarding which company's shoes, tag numbers, or the specific type of shoes were received from Amazon. It held that it was incumbent upon him to take photographs of the items received and returned, demonstrating both the items received and those returned. The District Commission held that such photographic evidence should have been presented before it to clarify the situation. However, the District Commission noted that Amazon did not return any amount after it received the shoes back from the Complainant. Amazon did not even make an effort to clarify the situation and elaborate on it to the Complainant. It also failed to appear before the District Commission. This amounted to a deficiency in service on Amazon's part. Taking all facts and circumstances into consideration, the District Commission deemed the refund of Rs. 1560/- (purchase price) to the Complainant along with Rs. 1000/- as legal costs to the Complainant by Amazon. The District Commission did not award any compensation for mental agony. Additionally, Red Tape was not held liable for deficiency in service and was not directed to pay any kind of compensation to the Complainant.Case Title: Kiran Bagdi vs Amazon In and another Case No.: CC/234/2022 Advocate for the Complainant: Mahesh Bagdi Advocate for the Respondent: None (Ex-parte) Click Here To Read/Download Order

Udaipur District Commission Holds Amazon Liable For Deficiency In Service For Failure To Refund Purchase Amount After Receiving Returned Product

Smita Singh

Tags