The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Darjeeling, has directed Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and a third-party seller to pay a total of ₹4.68 lakh to a consumer who was allegedly delivered a different camera model than the one he had ordered and was subsequently denied a refund despite returning the product. The Commission proceeded ex parte against the opposite parties after they failed to appear despite service of notice.
The complainant, Soloman Lepcha, had purchased a Fujifilm X-T5 digital camera worth ₹1.43 lakh through Amazon’s e-commerce platform from the seller Clicktech Retail Private Limited. Upon receiving the package on 10 February 2025, he discovered that the product delivered was a Fujifilm X-T50 camera instead of the Fujifilm X-T5 model that had been ordered. He immediately informed the platform and was asked to return the item, with assurances that the purchase price would be refunded.
According to the complaint, the returned product was collected from the complainant and received by the seller on 20 February 2025. However, when he checked the refund status, he was informed that the refund could not be processed because the returned item was allegedly incorrect. The complainant maintained that Amazon had wrongly categorised the issue as one involving a used or damaged item rather than recognising it as a case of wrong product delivery. He further relied on photographs showing conflicting labels on the package, including one tag identifying the product as an X-T50 and another sticker indicating X-T5.
The complainant asserted that despite repeated communications, legal notices and detailed representations explaining the alleged mislabelling, neither the refund amount nor the returned product was restored to him. He alleged deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and negligence on the part of both Amazon and the seller.
The Commission noted that the opposite parties failed to file any written version or contest the proceedings. It observed that the complainant’s evidence and supporting documents remained unchallenged and there was no reason to disbelieve either the testimony or the documentary material produced by him. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the complainant had successfully established his case against the opposite parties.
Also Read DHARA, DAFA AUR DRAMA: India Changed Its Criminal Laws, But Cinema Still Speaks IPC
Allowing the complaint, the Commission directed the opposite parties to refund ₹1.43 lakh, being the cost of the camera. It further awarded ₹2 lakh towards mental harassment and agony, ₹1 lakh as compensation for negligence and deficiency in service, and ₹25,000 towards litigation costs. The Commission also ordered that the awarded amounts would carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until realisation. The amounts are to be paid within 45 days, failing which the complainant would be entitled to initiate execution proceedings in accordance with law.
