Darjeeling Consumer Commission orders Amazon and seller to pay compensation in wrong camera delivery and refund dispute.

June 18, 2026 : The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Darjeeling, has directed Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. and a registered seller on its platform to compensate a consumer after finding merit in allegations that a wrong camera model was delivered and that the consumer was subsequently denied a refund despite returning the product. The Commission held that the complainant had successfully established a case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, ultimately awarding compensation exceeding ₹4.68 lakh along with interest.

According to the order passed in Consumer Complaint No. 09/2025, the complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by Solomon Namphok Lepcha against Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. and Clicktech Retail Pvt. Ltd., a seller operating on the Amazon marketplace. The dispute arose from the purchase of a Fujifilm X-T5 digital camera worth ₹1,43,000 through Amazon’s e-commerce platform.

The complainant alleged that although he had ordered a Fujifilm X-T5 camera, the product delivered on February 10, 2025 was actually a different model, namely the Fujifilm X-T50. After discovering the discrepancy, he immediately contacted the platform and initiated a return request. The product was collected from his residence and received by the seller on February 20, 2025. However, despite taking possession of the returned item, the seller allegedly refused to process the refund and instead claimed that the returned product was incorrect.

The complaint further stated that Amazon’s customer support initially assured the consumer that the matter would be investigated. However, emails sent by the platform allegedly categorized the issue as a “used and damaged item” dispute rather than acknowledging it as a case of wrong product delivery. The complainant maintained that photographic evidence clearly showed conflicting labels on the package, indicating that the wrong camera model had been shipped. He also claimed that repeated emails, legal notices and follow-up communications failed to produce any resolution.

During the proceedings, Amazon reportedly denied liability by asserting that it functioned merely as an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000. The company relied on packaging records, delivery confirmations and OTP-based delivery verification to support its position. The complainant, however, argued that Amazon played a much more active role in facilitating the transaction by hosting listings, managing payments, coordinating shipping and handling return logistics. According to the complainant, these functions went beyond the role of a passive intermediary and brought the platform within the scope of consumer accountability.

A significant aspect of the case was the allegation that the package carried dual labels, one indicating the model delivered and another corresponding to the model ordered. The complainant argued that this discrepancy demonstrated mislabeling and supported his claim that a different product had been shipped. He also contended that references to his account history and previous returns were irrelevant to the dispute and were being used to divert attention from the central issue of incorrect delivery and refund denial.

The Commission noted that despite receiving notice of the proceedings, the opposite parties failed to appear and did not file any written version contesting the complaint. As a result, the matter proceeded ex parte. The Commission observed that the complainant had filed documentary evidence, affidavits and supporting records, while the opposite parties did not challenge the evidence placed on record.

In its reasoning, the Commission emphasized that there was no material before it to disbelieve the complainant’s testimony or the documents submitted in support of his claims. The Commission observed, “There is nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant” and further noted that the documents produced by the complainant remained unrebutted throughout the proceedings. On that basis, it concluded that the complainant had successfully established his case against the opposite parties and was entitled to relief.

The order is significant because it reinforces the rights of online consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The decision highlights that e-commerce disputes involving incorrect deliveries and refund denials can attract liability when consumers are able to substantiate their claims with documentary evidence. It also underscores the importance of timely participation by online platforms and sellers in consumer proceedings, as failure to contest allegations can result in adverse findings.

Allowing the complaint, the Commission directed the opposite parties to refund the camera price of ₹1,43,000 within 45 days. In addition, it awarded ₹2,00,000 as compensation for mental harassment and agony, ₹1,00,000 for negligence and deficiency in service, and ₹25,000 towards litigation costs. The Commission further ordered that all awarded amounts would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until realization. It also clarified that if the directions were not complied with within the stipulated period, the complainant would be entitled to initiate execution proceedings in accordance with law.

The ruling serves as an important reminder for e-commerce platforms and online sellers that consumer grievances involving wrong product delivery, refund disputes and alleged unfair trade practices are subject to scrutiny under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. For consumers, the decision demonstrates the evidentiary value of invoices, photographs, email correspondence and legal notices in securing relief before consumer forums.