Amazon Ordered to Refund Hyderabad Woman After Wrong Product Delivered
HYDERABAD: A consumer court in Ranga Reddy has directed Amazon India to refund a Hyderabad woman and pay compensation after she received wrong products against two separate orders — though only one of the two claims was admitted, with the other dismissed as time-barred.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy, pronounced its order on March 31, 2026, in a complaint filed by Sindhu Jose, a resident of IDA Nacharam, Hyderabad.
The Complaints
Jose had placed two orders on Amazon. The first, dated April 18, 2022, was for a medical bed worth Rs.22,600 — purchased for her mother in Kerala. When she visited the following month, she found a waterbed had been delivered instead. Despite complaints raised on May 28 and 29, 2022, Amazon refused corrective action, citing expiry of the return window.
The second order, placed on January 11, 2024, was for a blazer worth Rs.3,999. Instead, she received cosmetic scrub products — a coffee face scrub and a body scrub — in a falsely labelled package with no invoice. The delivery was made via Cash on Delivery, but the delivery agent collected payment through Google Pay. Jose escalated the matter with UPI payment proof and photographs, but received no satisfactory resolution.
Amazon’s Defence
Amazon argued it is merely an intermediary marketplace — Amazon Seller Services Private Limited — and that the actual transactions were between the complainant and independent third-party sellers. It contended the sellers, not Amazon, were responsible for product quality and delivery, and that the complainant had failed to implead the actual sellers as necessary parties.
What the Commission Ruled
On the medical bed claim, the Commission held it was barred by limitation. The cause of action arose in April–May 2022, but the complaint was filed only on February 27, 2024 — beyond the two-year statutory period under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Commission rejected the argument that clubbing it with the 2024 complaint revived the limitation period.
On the blazer order, the Commission found Amazon liable for deficiency in service. It noted Amazon had itself offered a refund in an email — effectively acknowledging the grievance — which undermined its claim that the correct product had been delivered.
The Commission directed Amazon to refund Rs.3,999 with 9% interest from the date of filing the complaint, pay Rs.2,000 as compensation for mental agony, and Rs.5,000 as litigation costs — all within 45 days, failing which interest rises to 12%.
