PlayStation game shown as ‘delivered’ but ‘never reached’, buyer wins Rs 10,000 payout

According to the complainant, he had purchased ARK: Survival Evolved-PlayStation 4 through Amazon for Rs 2,590 using Amazon Pay Later. He alleged that although the order was marked as delivered on February 17, neither he nor his family received the product. He repeatedly contacted Amazon’s customer support seeking either proof of delivery or a refund, but the platform maintained that its records showed the item had been delivered.

The complainant also pointed to what he described as implausible tracking updates. According to the delivery log, the parcel reached the delivery destination at 2:14 pm, went out for delivery at 2:15 pm, and was shown as delivered by 2:21 pm, despite the delivery station being around 10 kilometres from his residence.

Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant sought refund of Rs 2,590 along with compensation of Rs 10,000 for mental agony.

Amazon contested the complaint, arguing that the transaction was between the complainant and an independent third-party seller, while it merely operated an online marketplace. It relied on the Information Technology Act and its marketplace terms and conditions to argue that it was only an intermediary and could not be held liable for the alleged non-delivery. It further said that the product was duly dispatched and successfully delivered by the independent seller at the address furnished by the complainant.

Amazon held liable

The commission rejected Amazon’s defence and said that the complainant approached the platform, made payment through the payment mechanism facilitated by the Amazon and even sent email by putting his grievance before its customer care, therefore, it could not say that they were just intermediary and not liable.

“The OP (Amazon) facilitated the entire transaction, but at the same time, they cannot adopt the escape route from his liability. An ecommerce platform cannot simply rely upon contractual disclaimers, where the complainant is alleging non delivery of the purchased goods,” the order read.

The commission held that the protection available to intermediaries cannot defeat the rights of the protection when the intermediary fails to satisfy the consumer regarding the proof of delivery. It further added that the discrepancies in the delivery timeline reflected in the tracking detail, lend support to the version of the complainant.

Holding Amazon guilty of deficiency in service, the commission directed it to refund Rs 2,590 and pay compensation of Rs 10,000 for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant.

Takeaway

The ruling emphasises that inability to provide services for which the consumer has paid a consideration may lead to consumer court holding services providers accountable for deficiency in service.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and union territories (Punjab: 0800-22577) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.