Introduction
In a significant ruling reinforcing consumer rights in e-commerce transactions, the Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held Amazon Retail India Pvt. Ltd. and its seller Appario Retail jointly liable for deficiency in service after a consumer was delivered a wrong item instead of the laptop he had ordered. The Commission not only directed a refund of ₹61,990 but also awarded compensation for mental agony, harassment, and litigation costs.
The case, titled Harjas Singh Sodhi v. Amazon Retail India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., highlights the growing accountability of online platforms in ensuring that products displayed and sold on their websites match what is actually delivered to consumers.
Background of the Case
The complainant, Harjas Singh Sodhi, purchased an HP Pavilion Laptop through Amazon, paying ₹61,990. However, instead of the ordered laptop, he received an obsolete IBM ThinkPad.
Upon receiving the wrong product, Sodhi immediately contacted Amazon’s Customer Care, lodged a complaint, and returned the item. Despite this, his refund request was rejected by Amazon, which claimed that he had returned a different product and that his account had an “excessive number of refunds,” allegedly violating its internal ‘Use Policy.’
Aggrieved by this response, Sodhi approached the District Consumer Commission at Delhi seeking a refund and compensation for the inconvenience and mental distress caused by Amazon’s negligence.
Amazon’s Defence
In its response, Amazon claimed that the consumer had violated its internal policy by making too many refund requests and that the returned item did not match what was originally shipped. The company attempted to disclaim liability, arguing that it only acted as an intermediary between the buyer and the seller (Appario Retail).
However, the Commission found these reasons “vague and unsubstantiated.” Amazon failed to provide any data on how many refunds the customer had actually requested, what the “expected” number was, or what the terms of its “Use Policy” entailed.
Findings of the Consumer Commission
The Bench, comprising President SS Malhotra and Member Ravi Kumar, delivered a strongly worded judgment against Amazon and Appario Retail. The Commission held that both entities were jointly liable for failing to deliver the correct product and for refusing to issue a refund after the mistake was pointed out.
1. Duty of E-commerce Platforms
The Commission emphasized that online marketplaces like Amazon have a duty to ensure that the products displayed and sold on their platforms are delivered correctly. It stated:
“It is the duty of the online platform which is offering such services to ensure that the correct product is delivered by the seller who is having a business-to-business contract with them. Whatever product is displayed at the online platform should be provided when ordered, which has not happened in this case.”
This observation underscores that large e-commerce companies cannot escape liability by claiming that the fault lies with a third-party seller when they facilitate the sale and handle delivery logistics.
2. Recommendation for Delivery Verification
In an important observation that could shape future practices, the Commission suggested that delivery processes should be photographed or videographed to prevent disputes about the nature of the product delivered.
It observed:
“There should be a system in place by online sellers/platforms that photographs or videos of receiving and opening of the packet are taken by their representative, rider, or delivery person. This will help keep a record of what is being delivered and will avoid many complaints in future.”
This recommendation reflects the growing need for transparency and accountability in e-commerce logistics, especially as online shopping becomes an integral part of modern consumer behavior.
3. Joint Liability of Amazon and Appario
The Commission categorically rejected Amazon’s attempt to shift responsibility to Appario Retail, holding that both entities were jointly liable for the lapse. It observed that Appario, being the seller, had received payment for the laptop and therefore bore contractual obligations toward the buyer.
The Commission stated:
“There is a joint liability of OP1 and OP2 in this case… it is their duty to ensure that the product dispatched has not been tampered with during transit and reaches the customer intact.”
The ruling clarifies that both the seller and the platform share responsibility for ensuring the safe and correct delivery of goods to consumers.
4. Amazon’s “Vague” Defence Rejected
The Commission sharply criticized Amazon’s justification for denying a refund. It held that the reasoning — that the consumer had “exceeded refund expectations” — was unfounded and unsubstantiated:
“This plea of OP1 (Amazon) is an afterthought to escape the liability of refunding the amount. OP1 has not provided any details as to how many number of refunds were there in the account of the complainant or what was their expectation which got exceeded. All these terms are too vague to be considered and appear to be mere hearsay.”
The order pointed out that such arbitrary internal policies cannot override consumer rights recognized under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Commission’s Final Order
After evaluating the evidence, including photographs provided by Sodhi showing that he received the wrong product, the Commission ruled in his favor. The order directed:
- Refund of ₹61,990 (the cost of the laptop) with 9% interest per annum from the date of payment until realization;
- ₹10,000 compensation for mental agony and harassment; and
- ₹7,500 towards litigation costs.
The Commission found that Amazon and Appario were deficient in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which defines deficiency as any shortcoming in the quality, nature, or performance of a service required to be maintained by law or contract.
Legal Significance
This ruling carries wide implications for e-commerce accountability and consumer protection in India. The Commission’s decision reaffirms that:
- Online platforms are not mere intermediaries:
When a consumer purchases through a platform like Amazon, the company is responsible for ensuring that the seller delivers the correct item and for handling refund processes transparently. - Internal company policies cannot override consumer law:
Amazon’s reliance on its “Use Policy” was dismissed as irrelevant since statutory consumer rights supersede corporate policies. - Proactive verification mechanisms may become standard:
The recommendation to photograph or video record deliveries could become a best practice to prevent fraudulent claims and protect both buyers and sellers. - Consumer evidence is crucial:
The Commission noted that Sodhi had provided photographs of the wrong product as soon as he opened the package, which helped establish the credibility of his complaint.
Representation
- For the Complainant (Harjas Singh Sodhi): Advocate Anushkaa Arora
- For the Opposite Parties (Amazon & Appario): None reported
Conclusion
The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s decision in Harjas Singh Sodhi v. Amazon Retail India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. sets a precedent for consumer protection in India’s rapidly expanding online marketplace. It sends a strong message to e-commerce giants that they cannot evade responsibility through vague policies or blame-shifting to third-party sellers.
The ruling underscores that transparency, accuracy, and accountability are the cornerstones of consumer trust in digital commerce. As online transactions continue to surge, this case stands as a reminder that platforms must uphold their duty of care to ensure that what consumers see and pay for online is exactly what they receive at their doorstep.
Also Read
