Why Darjeeling Consumer Court Ordered Amazon To Pay Customer INR 4.68 Lakh Compensation
The Darjeeling Consumer Court ordered Amazon and its seller to pay INR 4.68 lakh to a customer who was delivered an incorrect INR 1.43 lakh Fujifilm camera and denied a refund after returning it. The court found both parties liable for service deficiencies and unfair trade practices, awarding damages for harassment, negligence, and litigation costs.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Darjeeling has directed e-commerce major Amazon and a registered third-party seller to pay INR 4.68 lakh in refunds and compensation to a customer. The order was passed after the customer was delivered an incorrect camera model and subsequently denied a refund despite returning the product. A bench comprising President Tikendra Narayan Pradhan and Member Bhawana Thakuri found both Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and the seller liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
Delivery Discrepancy by Amazon and Denied Refund
The legal dispute began when the complainant, Soloman Lepcha, ordered a Fujifilm X-T5 digital camera priced at INR 1.43 lakh through Amazon's marketplace. Upon its delivery on February 10, 2025, the customer discovered that the package contained a different model, the Fujifilm X-T50. Amazon Layoffs: AWS CEO Matt Garman Announces Plans To Hire 11,000 Developers in 2026, Defends 30,000 Job Cuts.
After contacting customer support, Lepcha was assured of a full refund and was instructed to initiate a return. Although the logistics team successfully collected the device and returned it to the seller, Amazon subsequently rejected the refund request, claiming the returned item was "incorrect". Follow-up communications from the platform later categorised the issue as involving a "used or damaged item" rather than an incorrect delivery.
Despite providing substantial photographic evidence showing dual-tagged packaging and conflicting labels, Lepcha's claims were continually rejected. The e-commerce platform neither processed the refund nor sent the returned camera back to the buyer, prompting the customer to serve a legal notice and eventually approach the consumer court.
Platform Accountability vs Intermediary Defense
In its defense, Amazon argued that it could not be held liable for the transaction as it functions merely as an intermediary platform under the Information Technology Act, 2000. Conversely, the complainant contended that Amazon controls the core aspects of the transaction - including product listings, payment processing, delivery logistics, and returns management - and therefore shares responsibility with the seller.
The Consumer Commission noted that neither Amazon nor the independent seller appeared during the proceedings or submitted written responses, leaving the consumer's testimony completely uncontested. “We are of the view that the complainants have been able to made out there case against the O.Ps (Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and its seller) and they are entitled to get the relief as prayed for,” the Commission held.
Breakdown of Compensation and Penalties
Allowing the complaint, the bench directed both opposite parties to collectively settle the damages. The total financial penalty includes a direct refund of the product value along with separate punitive damages for service failures. “The O.ps (Amazon, its seller) are also directed to pay a sum of INR 2,00,000/- for mental harassment and agony and further the sum of INR 1,00,000 for negligence and deficiency of service and INR 25,000/- for litigation cost within 45 days from the date of this order,” the bench stated. Amazon Layoffs: Senior Engineering Leader Hemant Virmani Calls 11-Year Career Exit Blessing in Disguise.
The order mandates that the overall compensation amount will carry an interest rate of 9 per cent per annum, calculated from the initial date of filing the complaint until the final realisation of payment. Emphasising the lack of opposition during the trial, the panel added, “There is nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. There is also nothing to disbelieve the documents filed by the complainant has those documents remained unchallenged”.
(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Jun 22, 2026 03:15 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).