Paid ₹8,819 for mattress, got no refund after cancellation: Court orders Amazon to pay ₹18,819
The mattress was listed at ₹9,799, but Patial paid ₹8,819.10 after receiving a bank discount through an online Visa card transaction.
- Aug 11, 2026,
- Updated Aug 11, 2026 6:35 PM IST
Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. has been ordered to refund ₹8,819.10 to a Himachal Pradesh customer after his prepaid mattress order was cancelled and the product was returned to the seller, but the refund was never processed, according to a report by Live Law.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala, also directed Amazon to pay ₹5,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.
The Commission, comprising President Hemanshu Mishra and Members Arti Sood and Narayan Thakur, held that retaining the payment for an order that was neither delivered to the customer nor left with the courier amounted to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
What happened to the Amazon order?
The complainant, Shubham Patial, placed a prepaid order on Amazon on September 26, 2024, for a Wakefit Shape Sense Orthopedic Classic Mattress. The mattress was listed at ₹9,799, but Patial paid ₹8,819.10 after receiving a bank discount through an online Visa card transaction.
Don't Miss: 'India's economy has been resilient': Fitch keeps sovereign rating at BBB-
The order was not delivered within the stipulated period. Patial subsequently contacted Delhivery Company Pvt. Ltd., Amazon's logistics partner for the shipment.
According to the complaint, Delhivery suggested that the order be cancelled through an OTP. The order was cancelled on October 7, 2024.
Tracking records showed that the consignment was later returned to the seller and reached the consignor at Faridabad on October 16, 2024.
Despite assurances from Amazon that the refund would be processed, the order's refund summary showed a "Total expected refund" of ₹0.00. Patial said he received no refund despite repeatedly contacting Amazon through emails and telephone calls.
Amazon did not appear before consumer commission
Patial then approached the Consumer Commission, alleging deficiency in service over the non-refund.
Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., listed as Opposite Party No. 1, failed to appear before the Commission despite being served notice and was therefore proceeded ex parte.
Delhivery, listed as Opposite Party No. 2, contested the complaint. The courier company said it had attempted delivery on October 1, 2024, after which the complainant opted to cancel the order through OTP verification.
Must Read: NASA invites ISRO to join Moon Base programme as part of Artemis framework
Delhivery said the shipment was safely returned to the seller on October 16, 2024. It also argued that processing the refund was the responsibility of the marketplace and seller, and that it had no contractual responsibility towards the complainant for the financial refund.
What did the consumer commission say?
The Commission examined the documentary evidence, including the shipment tracking records. It found that the shipment had been marked "Undelivered" before the order was cancelled through OTP on October 7, 2024.
The tracking records further established that the mattress was returned to the consignor on October 16, 2024.
The Commission noted that Amazon's application had assured the complainant that the refund would be issued shortly. However, even after the returned product had reached the seller, the refund summary continued to show an expected refund of ₹0.00.
As Amazon remained ex parte, the evidence presented by Patial remained unrebutted.
The Commission concluded that Amazon's failure to refund the amount for an undelivered and returned order amounted to a clear deficiency in service as well as an unfair trade practice.
The Commission, however, did not find Delhivery responsible for the refund. It held that the courier company's role was limited to logistics and that it had duly returned the consignment to the seller.
How much will Amazon have to pay?
The complaint against Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. was allowed. The company was directed to:
- Refund ₹8,819.10 to Shubham Patial.
- Pay interest at 9% per annum on the refund amount from the date of filing of the complaint until realization.
- Pay ₹5,000 as compensation for the harassment caused to the complainant.
- Pay ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.
The complaint against Delhivery Company Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed.
Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. has been ordered to refund ₹8,819.10 to a Himachal Pradesh customer after his prepaid mattress order was cancelled and the product was returned to the seller, but the refund was never processed, according to a report by Live Law.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala, also directed Amazon to pay ₹5,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.
The Commission, comprising President Hemanshu Mishra and Members Arti Sood and Narayan Thakur, held that retaining the payment for an order that was neither delivered to the customer nor left with the courier amounted to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
What happened to the Amazon order?
The complainant, Shubham Patial, placed a prepaid order on Amazon on September 26, 2024, for a Wakefit Shape Sense Orthopedic Classic Mattress. The mattress was listed at ₹9,799, but Patial paid ₹8,819.10 after receiving a bank discount through an online Visa card transaction.
Don't Miss: 'India's economy has been resilient': Fitch keeps sovereign rating at BBB-
The order was not delivered within the stipulated period. Patial subsequently contacted Delhivery Company Pvt. Ltd., Amazon's logistics partner for the shipment.
According to the complaint, Delhivery suggested that the order be cancelled through an OTP. The order was cancelled on October 7, 2024.
Tracking records showed that the consignment was later returned to the seller and reached the consignor at Faridabad on October 16, 2024.
Despite assurances from Amazon that the refund would be processed, the order's refund summary showed a "Total expected refund" of ₹0.00. Patial said he received no refund despite repeatedly contacting Amazon through emails and telephone calls.
Amazon did not appear before consumer commission
Patial then approached the Consumer Commission, alleging deficiency in service over the non-refund.
Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., listed as Opposite Party No. 1, failed to appear before the Commission despite being served notice and was therefore proceeded ex parte.
Delhivery, listed as Opposite Party No. 2, contested the complaint. The courier company said it had attempted delivery on October 1, 2024, after which the complainant opted to cancel the order through OTP verification.
Must Read: NASA invites ISRO to join Moon Base programme as part of Artemis framework
Delhivery said the shipment was safely returned to the seller on October 16, 2024. It also argued that processing the refund was the responsibility of the marketplace and seller, and that it had no contractual responsibility towards the complainant for the financial refund.
What did the consumer commission say?
The Commission examined the documentary evidence, including the shipment tracking records. It found that the shipment had been marked "Undelivered" before the order was cancelled through OTP on October 7, 2024.
The tracking records further established that the mattress was returned to the consignor on October 16, 2024.
The Commission noted that Amazon's application had assured the complainant that the refund would be issued shortly. However, even after the returned product had reached the seller, the refund summary continued to show an expected refund of ₹0.00.
As Amazon remained ex parte, the evidence presented by Patial remained unrebutted.
The Commission concluded that Amazon's failure to refund the amount for an undelivered and returned order amounted to a clear deficiency in service as well as an unfair trade practice.
The Commission, however, did not find Delhivery responsible for the refund. It held that the courier company's role was limited to logistics and that it had duly returned the consignment to the seller.
How much will Amazon have to pay?
The complaint against Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. was allowed. The company was directed to:
- Refund ₹8,819.10 to Shubham Patial.
- Pay interest at 9% per annum on the refund amount from the date of filing of the complaint until realization.
- Pay ₹5,000 as compensation for the harassment caused to the complainant.
- Pay ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.
The complaint against Delhivery Company Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed.