5 min readNew DelhiAug 8, 2026 05:00 PM IST
First published on: Aug 8, 2026 at 05:00 PM IST
Nearly 10 months after an order for a prepaid mattress was allegedly cancelled, a Himachal Pradesh consumer forum ordered an e-commerce seller to refund Rs 8,819 with 9 per cent interest and pay Rs 10,000 towards compensation and litigation costs, holding that its failure to process the refund amounted to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
President Hemanshu Mishra and members Arti Sood and Narayan Thakur of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kangra, Dharamshala, were on August 3 hearing a complaint filed by Shubham Patial of Kangra against Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd and Delhivery Company Pvt Ltd over a prepaid mattress order that was cancelled but not refunded.
“The failure of opposite party number 1 (Amazon Seller Services) to process the refund for an unfulfilled and returned order constitutes a clear deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice,” the commission observed on August 3, holding the seller responsible for the failure to process the refund after the order was cancelled and the mattress returned.
The dispute began when Patial ordered a Wakefit “Shape Sense Orthopedic Classic” mattress from the online platform on September 26, 2024. The order was prepaid, but the mattress was not delivered. The shipment was subsequently cancelled on October 7, 2024, and the consignment was returned to the sender on October 16. Patial alleged that although he was assured that the refund would be processed, the money was not credited despite repeated follow-ups.
Customer paid Rs 8,800
The commission noted that the mattress had a stated price of Rs 9,799. However, the documentary evidence showed that the actual amount paid by Patial was Rs 8,819.10 after a bank discount of Rs 979.90. The transaction was made online using a Visa card.
According to Patial’s complaint, when the shipment was not delivered on time, he contacted Delhivery, the logistics company handling the consignment. He alleged that the matter was delayed under various reasons and he was eventually asked to share a code or OTP for cancellation.
The order recorded that the shipment was cancelled on October 7, 2024, after which a confirmation message stating “Shipment delivery cancelled” was generated. Patial was also assured by the e-commerce giant that the refund would be processed shortly. According to the complaint, repeated emails and telephone calls did not result in the refund being credited.
‘No direct deal with customer’
Amazon did not appear before the commission despite service of notice and was proceeded against ex parte (without hearing the other side). However, Delhivery contested the complaint and told the forum that an attempt had been made to deliver the consignment on October 1, 2024, but the delivery could not be completed. It further stated that Patial opted for a code-verified cancellation on October 7 and that the physical consignment was safely returned to the sender on October 16.
The logistics company argued that the financial transaction and subsequent refund management fell within the responsibility of the marketplace and seller. It also stated that it had no direct agreement with Patial concerning the refund and sought to dismiss the complaint against it.
App showed refund assurance: Forum
The commission examined the evidence produced and found that the shipment had been marked “UNDELIVERED” and cancelled via OTP on October 7 at 3.08 pm. The item was then returned and reached Faridabad on October 16. Following the cancellation and return, the application displayed the status “On the way back” and stated, “Your refund will be issued soon”. Despite the return of the merchandise, the refund summary showed “Total expected refund” as Rs 0.
The commission noted that the evidence produced by the complainant remained unchallenged and held that Amazon’s failure to process the refund constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
It distinguished Delhivery’s role from Amazon’s responsibility for the refund. The panel found that the logistics firm’s role was limited and the evidence showed that it had returned the physical consignment to the sender on October 16, 2024. Since it was not responsible for managing the refund, the commission found no deficiency in service attributable to Delhivery.
The complaint was therefore allowed against the e-commerce giant only. The commission directed it to refund Rs 8,819.10 to Patial along with interest at 9 per cent per annum from February 24, 2025, the date of institution of the complaint, until realization. In addition, it was directed to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation to the complainant and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.
Takeaway
When an online order is either cancelled or returned, consumers should keep the order details, cancellation confirmation and refund communications as proof. If the refund is not received within the promised time, they are entitled to raise a formal complaint with the consumer forum and seek compensation.
Aggrieved consumers may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Himachal Pradesh: 1800-180-8087) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
Don’t miss out on these stories:
Man waits 2 years for new gold bangles; gets back 32 grams, wins Rs 35,000 compensation
Rs 2 crore loan plea rejected ‘without reason’, man wins Rs 47,000 compensation from bank
‘Duped’ by couple over UK job promise, Kerala nursing student wins over Rs 6 lakh
The complainant’s evidence remained unchallenged and Amazon's failure to process the refund constituted a deficiency in service, the commission noted. (AI-generated image) 
Share
