E-Paper
Amazon, retailer fined ₹45,000 for refund delay of laptop: Here's what happened
Criticising Amazon, the commission called the delay an "unfair trade practice" as it leaves customers without evidence of the item being collected.
A consumer court in Delhi imposed penalty of ₹45,000 on Amazon and a retailer for taking almost 18 months to issue a refund for a faulty laptop, it was reported reported Times of India. Delhi East District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission said that the fine was imposed because it is Amazon's responsibility to ensure sale of authentic, defect-free products and address all issues related to faulty items or refunds.
Read more: T+0 cycle: These 25 stocks will be eligible for same-day settlement cycle from tomorrow. What changes and what it means?
Criticising Amazon, the commission called the delay an "unfair trade practice" as it leaves customers without evidence of the item being collected.
Read more: Deepinder Goyal on 'pure veg' fleet: Zomato's 75% orders vegetarian, didn't expect backlash
What had the customer complained?
As per the complaint, the customer faced a major delay in receiving a refund which constituted “deficiency in service”. The customer requested compensation for the same and said that Amazon did not provide any receipt upon return of orders.
Read more: SBI hikes annual maintenance charges for these debit cards from April 1: Complete details here
What Amazon said on the issue?
As Amazon's written statement was submitted after the statutory period, the commission did not consider the same as it said that the company will not be allowed to present evidence. The retailer also failed to appear despite being served a notice.
Read more: Xi Jinping meets US company CEOs in Beijing: Apple's Tim Cook not invited? Who was present?
What commission said on the case?
The commission said that customer's laptop was delivered on October 29, 2021, and picked up ten days later despite a return request made on the delivery day. Amazon does not have any “foolproof grievance redressal mechanism and there is nothing on record that shows details of its officers or of the seller", it noted.
