E-Paper
Issuing gift cards in place of refund costs Amazon dear
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has penalised Amazon Sellers Services Private Limited for sending gift cards instead of money as refund for a faulty
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has penalised Amazon Sellers Services Private Limited for sending gift cards instead of money as refund for a faulty tablet.
The forum has directed the firm to refund ₹17,029, along with interest at 9% per annum, to the complainant, Baljit Singh Dhillon, 61, resident of Sector 27, Panchkula.
The forum has also directed Amazon to pay ₹5,000 for causing mental agony and harassment, besides ₹5,000 as cost of litigation.
In January 2017, Dhillon purchased an iBall tablet through Amazon. After the product was delivered, he found the tablet had a display problem. The complainant informed the firm about the defect, and requested for a refund.
Dhillon submitted that the firm accepted the return request and assured to issue a refund once they received the faulty article.
However, the company issued him a refund in the form of gift cards, instead of returning the amount to his bank account. Thereafter, he contacted Amazon several times for the refund, but they kept dilly-dallying the matter on one pretext or another.
In their reply, Amazon submitted that they did not sell or offer to sell any products. They merely provided an online marketplace where independent third party sellers listed their products for sale. Therefore, the sellers themselves were responsible for their respective listings and products on the website, they stated.
Considering the facts, the forum observed that on the return of the product, the company was liable to refund the amount by way of deposit/ transfer into the bank account of the complainant.
“Instead of refunding the amount, insisting and forcing the complainant to buy another product by way of crediting the amount to Amazon account against the consent of complainant is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party,” the forum said.
“In view of the aforesaid discussion, we conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of opposite party while delivering services to the complainant; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief,” ruled the forum.
