Consumer Court Dismisses Non-Delivery Complaint Against Amazon: Case Fails Due to Lack of Evidence
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy, delivered an order on 21 April 2025 dismissing a consumer complaint filed by Mr. Arijit Das relating to a non-delivered mobile phone purchased through Amazon. The dismissal was based entirely on failure to file evidence, despite both opposite parties being set ex-parte.
This case highlights a critical and recurring issue in consumer litigation—complaints getting dismissed not because the consumer is wrong, but because they fail to present evidence or participate in the proceedings.
Case Overview
Complainant:
Arijit Das, 24 years, private employee residing in Gopanpalli Thanda, Ranga Reddy District.
Opposite Parties:
- Amazon India Pvt. Ltd. – Authorized Signatory, Hyderabad.
- Darshita Aashiyan Pvt. Ltd., Shamshabad – Seller/Logistics Entity.
Product In Dispute:
OnePlus Nord 3 5G (Tempest Gray, 8GB RAM, 128GB Storage)
Purchase price: ?20,999
Relief Claimed:
- Delivery of mobile or refund of ?20,999 with 24% interest
- ?1,00,000 compensation for mental agony
- ?10,000 litigation expenses
What the Complainant Alleged
Mr. Das claimed he ordered a OnePlus Nord 3 via Amazon but did not receive the mobile phone. He sought refund or delivery of the device along with compensation.
Annexures filed with the complaint included:
- Invoice copy
- Photos of the delivered package
- Email correspondence with Amazon
However, these documents were never marked as evidence because the complainant failed to appear thereafter.
Opposite Parties Proceeded Ex-Parte
Notices to Amazon (OP No.1) and the selling partner (OP No.2) were served on time:
- OP No.1 served on 09.09.2024
- OP No.2 served on 18.09.2024
Both opposite parties failed to submit written statements, and accordingly, both were set ex-parte.
Under normal circumstances, ex-parte status of opposite parties gives a strong advantage to the complainant. However, consumer law requires positive proof from the complainant, regardless of the opposite party’s participation.
Why the Complaint Was Dismissed
The dismissal was due to one major reason:
1. Complainant did not submit any affidavit or evidence
From 01 November 2024 onwards, the complainant stopped appearing and did not file:
- Affidavit in evidence
- Documentary proof
- Any supporting testimony
Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Section 38(6) mandates:
“Every complaint shall be heard on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record.”
Since no evidence was submitted, the Commission legally could not consider the annexures nor presume the complaint to be true.
Legal Principle Applied
Even in ex-parte situations:
- The burden of proof still lies on the complainant
- Mere allegations in the complaint cannot be treated as evidence
The Commission clearly noted:
“Complainant neither present nor submitted affidavit in evidence… We have no hesitation to dismiss the complaint.”
Final Order
The complaint was dismissed with no costs, as the complainant failed to prove his case.
Pronounced on 21 April 2025.
Key Learning for Consumers
1. Filing a complaint is not enough—evidence is mandatory
Courts cannot decide based on the complaint alone.
2. Attendance is crucial
Missing hearings for months leads to automatic dismissal.
3. Documents filed must be marked as evidence
Unmarked documents are legally irrelevant.
4. Ex-parte status of the opposite party does NOT guarantee a win
Consumers must still prove the claim.
5. Always submit an affidavit
It is the foundational requirement under the Consumer Protection Act.
Conclusion
This case underscores a simple but critical truth: even when consumers have strong claims such as non-delivery, their case will fail without active participation and proper evidence submission. The Consumer Court cannot grant relief based on unproven allegations, no matter how genuine the grievance may be.