A marketplace label did not save Amazon: the Bhopal Consumer Commission has directed Amazon to refund the price of a Samsung laptop with 9 percent interest and to pay compensation, holding that an OTP, by itself, does not prove the laptop reached the buyer.
Bhopal: The buyer alleged that a sealed parcel delivered in place of a Samsung laptop held only electronic waste, and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bhopal, has ruled in his favour against Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. Amazon must refund Rs 1,29,990 with 9 percent annual interest, and pay Rs 25,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 as litigation costs [Rounak Burrows v. Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and Another].
The order in Consumer Complaint No. CC/496/2023 is dated October 15, 2026 and was passed by President Yoge Dutt Shukla and Member Dr. Sanjeev Singh. The complaint against the second opposite party, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., was dismissed.
The directions
- Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. must refund Rs 1,29,990 to the complainant, with interest at 9 percent per annum from May 29, 2023 until repayment.
- It must pay Rs 25,000 for mental agony, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, and Rs 5,000 as litigation costs.
- Compliance is due within 45 days of receipt of the order, failing which an additional Rs 5,000 is payable as execution costs, along with interest as provided in the order.
- The complaint against Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. stands dismissed.
ALSO READ: Wrong Camera Delivered?: Consumer Court Orders Amazon To Pay Rs.4.68 Lakh Compensation
Why the OTP was not enough
Amazon’s records showed delivery following OTP-based verification, but the Commission held that this alone did not establish that the laptop was delivered. It also found that Amazon had not provided adequate information about the seller, Appario Retail, and had not resolved the buyer’s grievance satisfactorily.
Calling itself a marketplace, the Commission held, would not let Amazon off the hook. It was found liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Samsung was not held liable, as the dispute was chiefly about the online transaction and the delivery, not any defect in a Samsung product.
The buyer’s story
Rounak Burrows said he ordered a Samsung Galaxy Book 2 Pro 360 laptop on Amazon on May 29, 2023 for Rs 1,29,990, and that the parcel was delivered on June 2, 2023 after OTP verification. In his account, the sealed package held electronic waste, not a laptop.
He raised the matter with Amazon on June 12, 2023. Despite repeated attempts, he alleged, he got neither the laptop nor a refund.
The replies from Amazon and Samsung
Amazon told the Commission that it runs an online marketplace and was neither seller nor manufacturer. According to Amazon, the product was sold by Appario Retail Private Limited, which had not been made a party, and its records showed delivery after OTP-based verification.
Samsung’s reply was that it had no direct role in the transaction and that no deficiency in service was established against it.
Platforms and the intermediary argument
Consumer commissions are often asked to accept that an e-commerce platform is merely an intermediary. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 treats e-commerce as a field of consumer protection, and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice are grounds for relief against those who supply, or facilitate the supply of, goods and services.
Earlier, an East Delhi commission held Amazon and its seller Appario Retail liable for delivering a wrong laptop and refusing a refund, and ordered a refund of Rs 61,990. The Bhopal order follows the same reasoning on what a platform owes when a delivered item does not match the order.
The takeaway for buyers
A delivery confirmation, even with an OTP behind it, does not by itself settle a dispute over what was in the box. A platform that cannot give a buyer adequate details of the seller or resolve a complaint may be held to account directly, whatever its terms say about its role.
These are the findings of a district commission on the material before it, and the aggrieved party may pursue the remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Case Title: Rounak Burrows v. Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and Another [CC/496/2023]
Bench: Yoge Dutt Shukla, President, and Dr. Sanjeev Singh, Member, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bhopal
Date of Order: October 15, 2026