The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Darjeeling, West Bengal, has directed Amazon India and marketplace seller Clicktech Retail Pvt. Ltd. to refund ₹1.43 lakh to a buyer who received a different Fujifilm camera model than the one he ordered and was subsequently denied a refund despite returning the product. The order was passed on 18 June 2025, after the opposite parties failed to appear or contest the complaint.

What the Buyer Ordered — and What He Got

Complainant Soloman Lepcha of Darjeeling placed an order on Amazon's online marketplace for a Fujifilm X-T5 mirrorless camera priced at ₹1.43 lakh. When the package arrived on 10 February 2025, he found that the product inside was a Fujifilm X-T50 CS WW2 C — a different model entirely. Lepcha alleged that dual labels on the package, photographed and emailed to Amazon, pointed to deliberate mislabelling, though the commission did not make a specific finding on intent.

The Refund That Never Came

After raising the issue, Lepcha was assured of a refund and asked to return the product. The camera was collected from his residence on 15 February 2025 and received by the seller on 20 February 2025. However, when he checked the refund status the following day, he was told the refund could not be processed because the returned item was allegedly incorrect. Neither the refund was credited nor was the product sent back to him. A legal notice to both parties in March 2025 went unaddressed in any substantive manner.

Amazon's Intermediary Defence — and Why It Did Not Hold

In response to the legal notice, Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. reportedly denied liability, invoking intermediary protection under the Information Technology Act. The complainant countered that Amazon actively facilitated the listing, payment, shipping, and returns — functions that go beyond a passive intermediary role. Crucially, neither Amazon nor Clicktech Retail appeared before the forum or filed a written response, allowing the case to proceed ex parte. The commission held that the complainant's evidence, including photographs and correspondence, remained entirely uncontroverted.

What the Commission Awarded

The forum directed the opposite parties to refund ₹1.43 lakh — the full cost of the camera — within 45 days of the order. Beyond the refund, the commission awarded ₹2 lakh for mental harassment and agony, ₹1 lakh for negligence and deficiency in service, and ₹25,000 towards litigation costs. All amounts will carry interest at 9% per annum from the date the complaint was filed until realisation. The commission warned that non-compliance within the stipulated period would entitle Lepcha to initiate execution proceedings.

What This Means for E-Commerce Consumers

This ruling is notable because it squarely rejected the intermediary shield argument in a consumer forum setting, holding a marketplace accountable for fulfilment failures on its platform. Consumer rights advocates have long argued that platforms cannot claim passivity when they control the end-to-end transaction experience. This case adds to a growing body of district-level rulings that are expanding marketplace liability, even as the broader legal question of e-commerce platform accountability continues to evolve. The next step lies with the opposite parties — compliance by the 45-day deadline, or the prospect of execution proceedings.