Delhi Consumer Court Raps Amazon, Orders Rs. 70k Refund for Wrong Laptop Delivery

The case was filed by Harjas Singh Sondhi, who purchased the HP Pavilion laptop through Amazon on December 26, 2023. The product, delivered the next day, turned out to be an old IBM ThinkPad. The complainant immediately contacted Amazon’s customer care and followed all instructions for refund, including uploading photographs of the incorrect product and initiating a return. Amazon’s system confirmed pickup of the product on January 1, 2024, but a week later, it claimed that the returned item had been “lost in transit".

However, instead of processing the refund, Amazon informed the complainant on January 19, 2024, that his claim was rejected. The company alleged he had returned an item “different from what was ordered” and that his account had exceeded refund limits under its “Use Policy".

Calling Amazon’s explanation “vague and evasive,” the consumer forum found the justification an afterthought meant to evade liability. “OP1 (Amazon) has not provided any details as to how many refunds were made, what expectations were exceeded, and what the ‘Use Policy’ actually entails,” observed Member Ravi Kumar, who authored the order. The Commission said Amazon’s stance was “too vague to be considered” and declared it a clear case of deficiency in service.

The Commission also rejected Appario Retail Pvt. Ltd.’s argument that it had no direct contractual relationship with the buyer. It held that Appario, being the listed seller on the invoice, shared equal responsibility with Amazon in ensuring correct and untampered delivery of the product.

Highlighting the growing number of such grievances in online shopping, the forum emphasized the need for greater accountability by e-commerce companies. “There should be a system in place where photographs or videos of the packet being opened are taken by the delivery personnel to keep a record of what is being delivered,” the order noted.

Holding both Amazon and Appario jointly and severally liable, the Commission ordered refund of Rs. 61,990 with 9% annual interest from the date of purchase. Additionally, it awarded Rs. 10,000 for mental agony and Rs. 7,500 towards litigation costs. The companies were directed to comply within 30 days, failing which the amount would attract 11% annual interest until realization.