A Consumer’s Struggle With Amazon & Motorola: Defective Phone, Conflicting Policies, and a Fight for Consumer Rights

A Consumer’s Struggle With Amazon & Motorola: A detailed account of a defective Motorola G57 Power 5G purchased from Amazon India, highlighting conflicting return policies, denial of replacement, and potential violations under the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Introduction: When Online Shopping Goes Wrong

Amit Kaul – For Digital Desk, Bengaluru: February 26, 2026 – In today’s digital marketplace, consumers rely heavily on platforms like Amazon India for convenience, fast delivery, and hassle-free returns. Similarly, established brands such as Motorola India promote reliability and performance.

However, when a brand-new smartphone fails within 24 hours of use—and both the seller and manufacturer provide contradictory responses—the situation shifts from inconvenience to a potential consumer rights issue.

This is a documented timeline of events surrounding the purchase of a Motorola G57 Power 5G (8GB RAM, 128GB Storage) and the subsequent struggle for replacement. Invoices, screenshots, service center visits, and documented communication support all claims.

https://digitalamitkaul.online/india-200-billion-data-center-ai-infrastructure-hub-2026/

1. Purchase & Delivery

Ordered on: 12 February 2026

Delivered on: 18 February 2026

Price: ₹14,160

The product was purchased through Amazon India and delivered without visible external damage. Expectations were straightforward: a functioning new smartphone under a listed “10 Days Service Centre Replacement” policy.

2. First Use & Immediate Defect

Started using: 22 February 2026

Defect appeared: 23 February 2026

Within 24 hours of usage, the phone developed severe horizontal and multi-colored screen flickering, rendering it almost unusable.

The display showed distorted, unreadable lines across the screen — a classic symptom of display panel or motherboard failure. For a new device, this strongly suggests a manufacturing defect.

3. Reporting the Issue

Reported to Motorola: 24 February 2026

Reported to Amazon: 24 & 25 February 2026

Follow-up: 26 February 2026

Clear photographic proof was submitted to both parties. Instead of a straightforward resolution, contradictory statements began to emerge.

Conflicting & Misleading Policy Claims: A Consumer’s Struggle With Amazon & Motorola

Amazon’s Position

Amazon customer support claimed:

“As per policy, Motorola allows 10-day replacement at the service center.”

However:

1. No written brand-specific policy was shared.
2. Only a generic return-help webpage link was provided.
3. The page mentioned standard return windows and pickup conditions — not a specific Motorola replacement clause.
4. There was no documented evidence confirming a mandatory “service center replacement route.”

Motorola’s Position

1. Upon visiting an authorized service center, the response was:
2. “We do not provide replacements. Only repair is possible.”

Additionally:

1. No pickup or inspection slip was generated.
2. The device was not formally acknowledged under a replacement claim.
3. Amazon’s stated “10-day replacement” was denied.
4. This contradiction effectively trapped the consumer between the seller and the manufacturer.

Product Listing vs. Reality

The Amazon product listing clearly displayed:

1. “10 Days Service Centre Replacement”

Yet the ground reality was:

1. Amazon directed to the service center.
2. The service center denied the replacement.
3. This mismatch raises concerns of misleading representation and poor coordination between the seller and the brand.

Return Pickup Complications: A Consumer’s Struggle With Amazon & Motorola

After informing Amazon that Motorola denied replacement, Amazon initiated a return.

However:

1. Pickup from the current location was refused.
2. Policy was again cited without documentary proof.
3. Only a generic help link was shared.
4. This sequence suggests a possible deficiency of service and a lack of transparency.

Legal Perspective Under Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the following principles apply:

1. Defective Product

A brand-new device failing within 24 hours qualifies as a manufacturing defect.

2. Right to Be Informed

Consumers are entitled to accurate, clear information regarding policies. Sharing generic links instead of relevant clauses may violate this right.

3. Unfair Trade Practice

Contradictory statements between the seller and the manufacturer can amount to misleading conduct.

4. Shared Liability

Both the e-commerce marketplace and the manufacturer may be held responsible in cases involving defective products.

Evidence Documented

The case is supported by:

Amazon invoice

Product listing screenshot

Amazon return help page screenshot

Defective phone image

Timeline of communications

This documentation establishes:

✔ The product was defective shortly after purchase
✔ Replacement was denied despite listing the claim
✔ Policy communication lacked transparency
✔ Consumer was redirected without resolution

Broader Concerns for E-Commerce in India: A Consumer’s Struggle With Amazon & Motorola

This experience reflects a systemic issue within online retail ecosystems:

1. Brand-specific replacement claims may not be operationally enforced
2. Customer support often relies on scripted responses
3. Written documentation is rarely shared proactively
4. Consumers are frequently directed between the seller and the manufacturer
5. For high-value electronics, this creates significant risk.

Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale

E-commerce convenience should not come at the cost of accountability. When a defective product is sold, the resolution should be swift, transparent, and policy-backed.

Instead, this case demonstrates:

1. Conflicting statements
2. Lack of written proof
3. Refusal of immediate replacement
4. Pressure toward the repair of a brand-new device
5. Consumers purchasing electronics online must:
6. Take screenshots of listings and policies
7. Demand written confirmation of claims
8. Document all communication
9. Escalate through formal grievance channels if necessary
10. Defective products should be replaced promptly — not subjected to avoidable procedural confusion.

 

 

https://aamnewsnetwork.com/us-200m-edge-ai-indo-pacific-smartphone-innovation/

 

Author Bio

Amit Kaul is a professional content writer and digital news strategist based in Bengaluru (India). With over a decade of experience covering transportation, technology, and travel, Amit specializes in creating SEO-optimized, engaging news content for digital platforms. He focuses on in-depth reporting, trend analysis, and reader-friendly storytelling, ensuring articles reach a global audience effectively.