Consumer Court Fines Amazon Retail ₹18,000 and Orders ₹40,000 Refund to Woman for Hacked Phone
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed Amazon to refund ₹40,325 to a woman after she was sold a hacked phone, resulting in unauthorised purchases and data breaches. Additionally, Amazon was fined ₹18,000 for causing mental distress and covering litigation costs
Amazon Fined
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered Amazon Retail India to refund ₹40,325 to a woman for selling her a “hacked phone” that compromised her data and facilitated unauthorised purchases. Additionally, the company has been fined a total of ₹18,000—₹10,000 as compensation for mental anguish and harassment and ₹8,000 to cover litigation costs.
The woman, identified as Sumita Das from Sector 12 in Chandigarh, purchased a smartphone from Amazon's website but experienced fraud and financial loss due to the compromised device. In September 2023, fraudsters accessed her personal information and made unauthorised purchases using her Amazon account. She reported that the hackers also gained access to her ICICI Bank credit card and email. Despite notifying Amazon of the suspicious activity, the company did not cancel the fraudulent transactions or provide timely assistance.
Das noted that although Amazon initially promised to refund the cancelled fraudulent transactions, she has yet to receive the money. In response to the consumer court, Amazon India and Amazon Pay Later, the platform used for payment transactions, claimed they had cancelled the fraudulent orders and provided “proper and efficient assistance” to the complainant. They stated, “Considering the complainant’s grievance that her account was hacked, we immediately checked internally and assisted the complainant in sanitising and suppressing her account to ensure all orders were cancelled to prevent further issues.”
However, the consumer court pointed out that online platforms typically have a responsibility to “thoroughly verify” products before delivery and noted that Amazon failed to act promptly despite being informed of the suspicious activity, ultimately ruling in favour of the complainant.