Customer Sues Amazon Over ₹100 Rakhi, Wins ₹40,000 Compensation

In a notable ruling, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Mumbai, has directed Amazon to pay ₹40,000 to a customer for failing to deliver a Rakhi worth ₹100. The court found the e-commerce platform guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

Background of the Case

The complaint was filed by a woman who ordered a Motu Patlu Kids Rakhi for ₹100 on August 2, 2019, intending it for her nephew. Amazon had promised delivery between August 8 and August 13 that year. However, the Rakhi never arrived.

Instead, Amazon cancelled the order and refunded ₹100 on August 14, a day after the delivery window ended. The customer alleged emotional distress and harassment and later discovered that several other customers faced the same issue.

Key Observations by the Commission

The consumer court observed multiple lapses:

• The courier company assigned for delivery had reportedly shut down, raising serious questions about Amazon’s due diligence.
• The tracking ID showed the product was shipped before the order was placed.
• Amazon refunded the amount but never paid the seller, Dhanashree Rakhi, indicating it was not just a facilitator.

The commission noted:

“It is the duty of the Opposite Party that it should verify the whereabouts as well as the status of the seller before accepting the order… Amazon is liable for the consequence of non-delivery of the said product and not doing so amounts to deficiency in service.”

Compensation Ordered

The DCDRC bench comprising President Samindara R Surve and Member Sameer S Kamble directed Amazon to:

• Pay ₹30,000 as compensation
• Pay ₹10,000 as litigation costs
• Make the payment within 60 days, failing which 6% interest per annum would apply

While the complainant had sought ₹4.5 lakhs for emotional distress, the court awarded a reduced sum, observing:

“Rakhi is not such a commodity which is not available in the open market… However, since the complainant has made out a case for deficiency in service, she is entitled to reasonable damages.”

Amazon’s Defence Rejected

Amazon defended itself by claiming it was only an online marketplace and not liable for the actions of third-party sellers. However, the court held that the platform had accepted the order and processed the refund without demonstrating that the seller had ever been paid. Hence, it found Amazon liable as a direct party to the transaction.