Consumer Court Orders Amazon And Seller To Pay Customer Refund, Rejects 'Use Policy' Defence

If you order something from Amazon but receive a different product, what would you do? You either replace the product or return it. If returned, you get back the price paid. But what if you are denied the refund? When such a complaint reached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Amazon and the seller were ordered to refund the full price of the item to the customer and also pay compensation for mental agony and litigation costs. The DCDRC, East Delhi, asked the e-commerce platform and the product seller, Appario Retail India Pvt. Ltd, to refund the product's full price – Rs 61,990 – along with other costs within 30 days from the date of order in August 2025.

The matter pertained to Harjas Singh Sodhi, the complainant. He ordered an HP Pavilion Laptop online on the Amazon on December 26, 2023, and paid Rs 61,990. The product was delivered to him on December 27, 2023, but it was an IBM ThinkPad, not the one he had ordered. He immediately contacted customer care, who asked the complainant to click the product's photograph and upload it to the link shared along with his name and date, which he did.

On December 31, 2023, he was told the disputed item would be picked up on January 1, 2024, but his refund did not come for the next week. On January 7, 2024, he received a message, 'lost in transit- return not received: your return is likely lost in transit. Do not worry, our Customer Care can help you regarding the refund. 

On January 19, 2024, he received an email from the e-commerce company stating that a refund cannot be issued because the returned item is different from what he ordered, and the number of refunds exceeds the expectations, and also alleged misuse of its "Use Policy". The complainant replied that he returned the item because it was different from what he ordered.

Seeing no possibility of a refund, the complainant lodged a complaint with the DCDRC, seeking a full refund, penal interest at an annual 18 per cent rate from the date of purchase, the name of the rider who delivered the product, and compensation of Rs 1 lakh each for harassment and litigation. 

The defendants (Amazon and the seller of the product) gave arguments in their defence, such as condonation of delay by Amazon, no charges, and no direct dealing between the seller and the complainant, and a prayer for dismissal of the case.

In response, the complainant submitted the evidence and a written reply.

The commission noted that one product was ordered, but a different product was delivered. It is noted that it is the duty of the platforms offering such services to ensure that the sellers deliver the correct products. There should be a system for taking photographs or videos to record the items taken by riders for delivery to avoid customer complaints in the future.

It further noted that once the item is returned, the responsibility for the product loss or damage lies with the online service provider. It also rejected the use policy argument of Amazon in the absence of any record showing the exceeded number of refunds to the customer.

The commission found both defendants liable for service deficiency and ordered them to refund Rs 61,990 with 9 per cent annual interest from the date of payment, pay Rs 10,000 for mental agony, and Rs 7,500 for the litigation cost, within 30 days of the order.