Delhi/Darjeeling, June 22 (IANS) The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in West Bengal’s Darjeeling has directed Amazon India and a seller on its platform to refund Rs 1.43 lakh to a consumer who was allegedly delivered a different Fujifilm camera model than the one ordered and was subsequently denied a refund despite returning the product.
The complaint was filed by Soloman Lepcha of Darjeeling against Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. and Clicktech Retail Pvt. Ltd., alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in connection with the purchase of a Fujifilm X-T5 mirrorless camera worth Rs 1.43 lakh through Amazon’s online marketplace.
According to the complaint, Lepcha placed an online order for a Fujifilm X-T5 mirrorless camera and received delivery on February 10, 2025. However, upon opening the package, he found that the product delivered was a Fujifilm X-T50 CS WW2 C model instead of the camera he had ordered.
The complainant contended that after raising the issue with the opposite parties, he was asked to return the product and was assured of a refund. The camera was collected from his residence on February 15, 2025, and was received by the seller on February 20, 2025. However, when he checked the refund status the following day, he was informed that the refund could not be processed because the returned item was allegedly incorrect.
The complainant claimed that despite returning the camera delivered to him, neither the refund was processed nor was the returned product sent back. He further alleged that emails sent to Amazon explaining the issue and enclosing photographs showing dual labels on the package were rejected without valid reasons. A legal notice was also issued to the opposite parties in March 2025.
In its response to the legal notice, Amazon reportedly denied liability, claiming protection as an intermediary under the Information Technology Act. However, the complainant argued that the e-commerce platform actively facilitated various aspects of the transaction, including listings, payments, shipping and returns.
In its order, the consumer forum recorded that despite service of notice, the opposite parties neither appeared before the forum nor filed any written version contesting the complaint.
The matter, therefore, proceeded ex parte against them. After examining the pleadings, evidence and documents placed on record, the commission held that the complainant’s case remained uncontroverted.
“There is nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. There is also nothing to disbelieve the documents filed by the complainant as those documents remained unchallenged,” the commission said in its order passed on June 18.
The consumer forum further observed that the complainant had successfully established his case against the opposite parties.
“We are of the view that the complainants have been able to make out their case against the O.Ps and they are entitled to get the relief as prayed for,” it said.
Allowing the complaint, the commission directed the opposite parties to refund Rs 1.43 lakh, being the cost of the camera ordered by the complainant, within 45 days from the date of the order. The forum also awarded Rs 2 lakh towards mental harassment and agony, Rs 1 lakh for negligence and deficiency in service, and Rs 25,000 towards litigation costs.
Further, it ordered that all amounts awarded would carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until realisation. The commission said that in the event of non-compliance within the stipulated period, the complainant would be at liberty to initiate execution proceedings in accordance with the law.
–IANS
pds/vd
