Noida: The district consumer commission has ordered e-commerce major Amazon Seller Services to pay Rs 5,000 for mental harassment and Rs 1,000 as litigation costs to a consumer, holding the company liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver a gas stove after receiving payment. However, Amazon refunded Rs 3,069 when cancelling the product delivery.Commission chairperson Anil Kumar Pundir and member Anju Sharma on Thursday noted that the decision was based on the principle that failure to deliver purchased goods on time and thereafter refunding the amount causes mental agony to customers and constitutes a deficiency in service.On April 5, 2025, Noida residents Abhishek Bharadwaj and Akshay filed a complaint against Amazon over a Rs 3,069 Milton three-burner stove bought on March 29. They sought compensation for mental harassment, risk to life, and inconvenience due to deficient service and false commitments, plus a formal apology.Amazon’s confirmation email promised one-day delivery, but the order was not delivered within that time frame. From March 30 to April 1, the complainant repeatedly called both Amazon customer care and the delivery agent to follow up, but despite a call from the agent to confirm the address, it was never delivered. Amazon later marked the order as “undelivered,” citing “customer unreachable.”Bharadwaj claimed that Amazon promised one-day delivery but failed to deliver. Despite repeated calls to customer care and the delivery agent between March 30 and April 1, the order never arrived, and Amazon marked it “undelivered,” blaming “customer unreachable.”“On April 1, a caller from Amazon’s Greater Noida delivery station again confirmed the product would be delivered and said the delivery person would ask for an OTP to complete delivery, but the same evening, Amazon issued an unsolicited refund and falsely marked the order as ‘undeliverable’ without prior notice, discussion, or our consent,” Bharadwaj said.Amazon denied all allegations, stating the stove was sold by an independent third-party seller, not Amazon. It claimed the delivery failed due to the complainant being unreachable, and a full refund of Rs 3,069 was issued on April 1, leaving no cause for action.Pleading intermediary status under the IT Act and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, ASSPL said that the complaint was misconceived, vexatious, and filed with malicious intent to seek unlawful gains.The commission observed that after filing the written arguments, the opposite party remained absent and did not file any evidence.Closing the opportunity to file evidence on June 1, 2026, the commission noted that ASSPL, in its written statement, admitted that it accepts sealed products from sellers and ships them to consumers. “It shows that ASSPL participates in physical fulfilment and cannot disclaim responsibility for delivery,” the commission held.The commission noted the complainant’s evidence: order confirmation promising one-day delivery, call records from March 30 to April 1, and no delivery vehicle entry logged by building security on March 31 — proving he was present and repeatedly followed up, yet the product was never delivered.“A refund does not cure the deficiency in service or compensate for the mental agony, inconvenience and harassment caused by the non-delivery of the product,” the commission held.
