Amazon Held Liable for Non-Delivery of Rakhi; Consumer Commission Awards ₹40,000 for Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice

Post By 24law
May 26, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban, has held Amazon and its seller services arm guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices in a case involving the non-delivery of a Rakhi ordered online. The Commission directed Amazon and M/s. Amazon Seller Services Private Limited to pay ₹30,000 as compensation and ₹10,000 as litigation costs to the complainant. The order was passed on 11 February 2025 by a bench comprising Hon’ble Smt. Samindara R. Surve (President) and Hon’ble Shri Sameer S. Kamble (Member).

Also Read: Presence Alone Not Enough To Prove Guilt Under Unlawful Assembly | Identification Of Accused Was Doubtful | Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings In CAA-NRC Protest Case

The complaint was filed by Sheetal Kanakia, a resident of Borivali, Mumbai, who had ordered a ‘Motu Patlu Kids Rakhi’ on 2 August 2019 through Amazon’s online portal. The Rakhi was priced at ₹100 and the order was to be delivered between 8 to 13 August 2019. The complainant stated that she placed the order for her brother’s son and that the Rakhi carried emotional significance. Despite repeated follow-ups, the Rakhi was not delivered, and instead, a refund of ₹100 was deposited into her bank account on 14 August 2019, a day after the delivery window had passed.

Further investigation by the complainant revealed that the tracking details provided by Amazon were questionable. According to the tracking information, the Rakhi had supposedly been shipped on 25 July 2019—several days before the order was even placed. Moreover, the courier company listed, Poonam Courier, was found to be permanently closed. The tracking ID (7069465373) provided was invalid. The complainant alleged that these were instances of misleading information. She also submitted that Amazon failed to provide any details about the seller, despite her repeated requests, and eventually filed a legal notice, which was not satisfactorily responded to. Consequently, she filed the consumer complaint, CC/292/2019, seeking compensation for mental harassment and emotional distress.

Initially, the complaint was filed only against the entity operating the website, but was later amended to include M/s. Amazon Seller Services Private Limited. Upon issuance of notice, Amazon (Opposite Party No. 1) did not appear, and Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 2) failed to file its written statement within the stipulated time. As a result, the Commission recorded that no written statement was on record and proceeded based on the evidence and arguments presented by the complainant.

The Commission first held that Sheetal Kanakia qualifies as a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, since she paid consideration for the product, which the Opposite Party accepted. As a result, a service provider-consumer relationship was established between her and the platform.

On examining the facts, the Commission noted that the Rakhi was never delivered, and the refund was issued only after the scheduled delivery period had expired. Furthermore, there was no document produced by Amazon to show that the ₹100 collected from the complainant was forwarded to the actual seller, Dhanashree Rakhi. This suggested that the amount remained with Amazon, confirming its active role in the transaction.

The Commission rejected Amazon’s defense that it was merely a facilitator or online marketplace with no responsibility for the listing or delivery of products. It held that once Amazon accepted the order and payment, it became responsible for the fulfilment of the order. The bench noted, “Although the Opposite Party has acted as facilitator/intermediary, the amount of the said Rakhi was with it and hence [it is] responsible for its timely delivery.” The Commission also criticized Amazon for not verifying the operational status of the courier service used and for failing to provide accurate tracking information. It observed that the seller’s courier—Poonam Courier—was permanently shut down, and the tracking ID was found to be fake. These facts reinforced the complainant’s allegation that she was misled.

While the complainant had sought ₹4.5 lakh as compensation, the Commission found that she did not submit sufficient evidence to justify such a high amount. It acknowledged, however, that the complainant had suffered mental distress and inconvenience due to the non-delivery of a festival-related product and Amazon’s lack of cooperation. It noted that although a Rakhi is not an irreplaceable item and is available in the open market, the complainant was still entitled to reasonable damages.

Also Read: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Recovery Order Against Auto Owner | LMV Licence Covers Auto Rickshaw Driving | Apex Court Ruling Applies Retrospectively

Accordingly, the Commission passed the following order:

The complaint was partly allowed.

Amazon and Amazon Seller Services Private Limited were declared guilty of deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practices.

They were directed to pay ₹30,000 as compensation to the complainant within 60 days of receiving the order, failing which interest at the rate of 6% per annum would apply until the date of payment.

They were also directed to pay ₹10,000 as litigation costs within the same period.

Certified copies of the order were to be sent to both parties free of cost.