Read Time: 08 minutes
The consumer commission held Amazon and the third party seller jointly and severally liable for not providing a refund to the customer for over one year stating that, Amazon is responsible for customer care and is duty bound to ensure that its delivery/return pick-up system is fool-proof
In a significant development, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), New Delhi has issued directives against e-commerce giant Amazon and a third-party seller, for deficiencies in service and unfair trade practices.
The consumer commission has directed Amazon and the seller to jointly and severally pay a compensation of Rs 35,000 to the consumer over and above the refund amount and improve pick up and refund process. The decision comes in response to the delay in completing the refund process in over one year after the complaint was made by the consumer. It was also found that there were inefficiencies in the grievance redressal mechanism, which led to significant mental agony and harassment for the consumer.
The case revolves around a complainant purchasing an ASUS ROG Zephyrus G14(2021) laptop from the e-commerce platform, Amazon, for Rs. 77,990. This laptop was sold by a third-party seller, Appario Retail Private Limited. However, upon receipt, the complainant discovered that the product was defective. After lodging complaints with Amazon, the customer received a refund for the product's price. However, the primary grievance pertained to the delay in refunding the amount, which extended over a year. The complainant claimed that the delay caused him significant mental agony, harassment, inconvenience, and distress.
According to the complainant's submissions, the laptop was returned on November 3, 2021, yet the refund was not processed until April 6, 2023, despite repeated requests and follow-ups with Amazon—this ordeal endured by the complainant, lasting over one year and five months.
The commission's investigation highlighted several lapses in Amazon's handling of the transaction. Notably, the lack of transparency in the pickup process, absence of senior officials' contact details on the website, and the delay in processing refunds were identified as key areas of concern.
While Amazon submitted a written statement beyond the statutory period, rendering it inadmissible, the third-party seller, chose not to appear, resulting in an ex parte proceedings.
Upon review of the evidence presented, the commission underscored Amazon's significant role in transactions. The terms and conditions outlined by Amazon further highlighted its extensive involvement in the sale and fulfilment process.
The commission firmly held that Amazon acts beyond a mere intermediary, accepting orders from customers, placing them with third parties, and concluding contracts upon delivery. However, it found Amazon deficient in service, with a delayed refund process. The commission noted that, Amazon “is responsible for customer care and is duty bound to ensure that it’s delivery/return pick up system should be fool-proof.”
Additionally, it was held that Amazon's grievance redressal mechanism lacked appropriate grievance redressal mechanism. The commission observed, “from the terms and conditions of the “Conditions of Use” of OP1 (Amazon) that it has been using one sided oppressive terms of the contract which amounts to unfair trade practice on its part.”
Therefore, Amazon was directed to rectify these shortcomings promptly to uphold consumer rights and ensure fair e-commerce practices.
The commission also ruled that the third-party seller cannot evade its responsibility to furnish the complainant with a correct and defect-free item holding it liable “for deficiency in service is on his part for providing a defective product to the complainant.”
Consequently, the commission directed both Amazon and the third-party seller to jointly and severally compensate the complainant with Rs. 35,000, along with 7% annual interest from November 9, 2021, and Rs. 10,000 towards litigation costs. It was further stated that failure to comply within 30 days will result in additional interest at a rate of 10% per annum on the total amount.
Furthermore, Amazon, as the platform facilitating the transaction, was mandated to enhance its pickup procedures by issuing receipts to customers and ensuring the safety and security of pickups. The company must also display complete details of officers handling grievances and establish a transparent grievance redressal mechanism on its platform, the commission ordered.
Cause Title: Anil Kumar vs Amazon Seller Services Private Limited
Please Login or Register
