Holding Amazon Retail India Pvt Ltd (Amazon India) and Appario Retail Pvt Ltd (OPs) liable for deficiency in service and delivering a wrong and obsolete laptop from another brand, the district consumer disputes redressal commission in East Delhi directed both companies to jointly refund Rs61,990 with interest, pay Rs10,000 towards mental agony and harassment and Rs7,500 legal cost to the consumer. The Delhi-based consumer had received an obsolete IBM ThinkPad instead of the HP Pavilion laptop he ordered online.
In an order in August, the bench of SS Malhotra (president) and Ravi Kumar (member), says, "Once the product in question has been picked up by the representative of Amazon India, which is recorded in its app then the responsibility of its safely reaching them was on Amazon India, however Amazon India took a different stand altogether and request for refund was rejected on 19 January 2024 for the reason that the complainant had returned item that is different to the item that he had ordered and there were number of refunds in the account of the complainant which exceeds expectation and is in violation of ‘use policy’. This plea of Amazon India, according to the Commission, is an afterthought to escape the liability of refunding the amount as Amazon India has not provided any details as to how many number of refunds were there in the account of the complainant and what was their expectation which got exceeded and what is the ‘use policy’. Amazon India is relying on and all these terms which are too vague to be considered and appears to be a mere hearsay and therefore cannot be appreciated. Therefore, the deficiency in service on the part of Amazon India is apparent in the case."
"As regards Appario Retail is concerned, it is also not disputed that it had sold the product through Amazon India as their name figures in the dispatch invoice dated 26 December 2023 and Appario Retail must have received the consideration amount from Amazon India which was actually paid by the complainant to Amazon India and therefore the contention of Appario Retail that there is no privity of contract between it and the complainant and there is no consideration paid by the complainant to it directly is without any merit. The product has been sold and dispatched by Appario Retail and the return process was through Amazon India, which was followed by the complainant. The complainant has given sufficient evidence by way of enclosing the photograph of the IBM Think Pad immediately when he opened the packet and as per the advice of the customer care of Amazon India had uploaded the photographs also on their app as well as through email. Therefore, there is a joint liability of Amazon India and Appario Retail in this case, and Appario Retail is also found deficient in service in sending a different product, that too an obsolete one, instead of the product which the complainant has ordered through Amazon India. The dispatch has been done through OPs and it is their duty to ensure that the product which has been dispatched has not been tampered with during the transit and reaches the customer intact who had ordered," the bench says.
The case was filed by one Harjas Singh Sodhi who alleged that Amazon India and Appario Retail were guilty of deficiency in service after he was sent a completely different and outdated product in December 2023.
According to the complaint, Mr Sodhi ordered an HP Pavilion laptop worth Rs61,990 on 26 December 2023 via Amazon’s online platform. The package was delivered a day later, but upon opening it he found an old IBM ThinkPad inside instead of the HP model he had paid for.
Mr Sodhi immediately contacted Amazon’s customer care and was assured that the issue would be resolved. He followed all instructions, uploading photographs of the wrong product on links shared by Amazon and later received confirmation that a refund would be processed once the product was picked up.
The laptop was collected by Amazon’s delivery representative on 1 January 2024, and the company’s app even reflected the pick-up status. However, on 7 January 2024, the app displayed a message stating that the 'return is lost in transit'. Despite Amazon’s assurance that customer care would assist in issuing the refund, the company later refused to refund the amount, claiming that the returned item was 'different from what was ordered' and that the customer’s account had an 'excessive number of refunds, ' allegedly violating its 'use policy’.
Finding these explanations 'vague' and unsupported by evidence, the commission observed that Amazon India’s stance appeared to be an afterthought to escape liability. The order stated that Amazon India was clearly deficient in service, noting that once the product had been collected by its representative, the responsibility for its safe delivery rested solely with the company.
The commission also held Appario Retail, the seller named in the invoice, equally liable. Appario Retail had argued that there was 'no direct contractual relationship' with the complainant since the transaction took place via Amazon’s platform. The commission, however, rejected this argument, stating that the product was sold and dispatched by Appario Retail and that it had received payment via Amazon.
“It is the joint responsibility of the online platform and the seller to ensure that the correct product is dispatched and reaches the customer intact,” the commission observed. It further criticised e-commerce platforms for not having adequate safeguards to prevent such incidents. The order suggested that online sellers should consider recording the opening of delivery packages to verify the contents and avoid similar disputes in future.
The order further stated that if the companies fail to comply within 30 days of receiving the judgement, they would be liable to pay 11% annual interest on the entire amount until full realisation.
The ruling underscores the growing scrutiny of major e-commerce platforms over accountability and product delivery standards.
(Consumer Complaint No DC/78/CC/74/2024 Date: 14 August 2025)
