Ordered camera, got perfume: Amazon likens itself to mall; court orders refund for B’lurean

Bengaluru: A Bengaluru man who ordered an action camera worth nearly Rs 39,000 but received a perfume gift set instead has won a consumer case against Amazon after the e-commerce platform repeatedly maintained that the correct product had been delivered.

Holding the firm liable for deficiency in service, a consumer commission has directed it to refund the purchase amount with interest and pay litigation costs.The dispute began on July 12, 2025, when S Chiragvendra, a 21-year-old resident of Nagarabhavi II Stage, ordered an Insta360 Ace Pro 2 Action Camera worth Rs 38,990 on Amazon India. The order was delivered on July 14, but the package contained a Bellavita perfume set instead.After discovering the wrong delivery, Chiragvendra raised a complaint with Amazon on July 15 and also lodged a complaint by email. He alleged that Amazon’s specialist team handled his grievance carelessly. Following his conversation with a customer care executive, Amazon arranged pickup of the package on July 15 but did not refund the amount.On July 21, Chiragvendra served a legal notice on Amazon, seeking a refund of Rs 38,990, Rs 15,000 towards mental agony and physical strain, and Rs 10,000 as the cost of issuing the notice.

When Amazon failed to respond, he approached the consumer commission on Aug 20.In its defence, Amazon argued that the complaint suffered from misjoinder and non-joinder of parties, contending that the camera had been purchased from an independent third-party seller, Clicktech Retail Private Ltd, which had issued the invoice. It also submitted that the company had been incorrectly impleaded as Amazon Seller Pvt Ltd instead of its correct corporate name, Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd.Amazon likened its role to that of a shopping mall, arguing that customers buy products directly from sellers and any grievance over defective goods should be pursued against the seller rather than the marketplace. It maintained that it merely provided the platform and neither manufactured nor sold the listed products.The company further asserted that the camera had been delivered through an OTP-secured process in tamper-proof packaging.

It said an internal probe under its Abuse Risk Investigation mechanism verified the shipment weight, scan details, and tamper-proof confirmation, finding no discrepancy in the fulfilment or delivery of order. Since there was no valid basis for a return, no pickup was created and the refund request was rejected, Amazon said, seeking dismissal of the complaint.After hearing both sides, the commission noted that the photograph produced by Chiragvendra showing the perfume set had not been specifically denied by Amazon, which had instead focused on claiming it was only an intermediary.

It observed that Amazon, as a well-known e-commerce platform with substantial goodwill across the country, enjoyed the trust of consumers and could not evade liability merely by citing the absence of the third-party seller as a party to the proceedings.

The commission held that Amazon’s failure to resolve the grievance, its attempt to shift responsibility, and its conduct towards the customer amounted to deficiency in service.On June 5, the bench comprising president Syed Anser Kaleem and members Sharavathi SM and Jyothi N directed Amazon to refund Rs 38,990 with 6% annual interest from the date of complaint until realisation, besides paying Rs 2,000 towards litigation costs. It also directed the complainant to return the perfume gift set to the e-commerce platform.