Mukul P Unny, a Supreme Court lawyer, has fallen victim to a scam involving an iPhone exchange offer on Amazon, resulting in a loss of Rs 38,000. The troubling sequence of events began on July 21, 2024, when Unny upgraded from his iPhone 13 to an iPhone 15 through Amazon’s exchange program.
On the evening of July 22, 2024, a delivery executive arrived at Unny’s home around 9:30 PM to deliver the new iPhone 15. After receiving the new device, Unny provided the necessary OTP and handed over his old iPhone 13. At this point, the delivery executive, Vishal, requested an additional OTP, stating it was required for the exchange process. Unny was confused, as he had not been informed of any additional OTP requirements.
Vishal contacted his supervisor, Ashok, who explained that the exchange process involved a separate team and instructed Unny to return the new iPhone 15. Ashok assured Unny that the exchange would be completed the following day. Reluctantly, Unny returned the new phone but retained contact numbers for both Vishal and Ashok.
When Unny followed up with Amazon’s customer service the next day, he was told that a refund would be issued if the product was not delivered. However, on July 26, he was advised to wait until July 31 for further updates, as the matter was under investigation.
On July 31, Amazon concluded its investigation and informed Unny that a refund could not be processed. Frustratingly, Unny had neither received the new iPhone 15 nor had his old phone been collected, contradicting claims of a completed exchange.
Compounding the issue, Ashok later contacted Unny, suggesting that he deliver his old phone to a specific location with a promise of a new phone within 24 hours. Unny, suspecting a scam, declined the offer.
Unny’s experience underscores significant concerns about the reliability of online exchange offers and the accountability of delivery personnel. This incident highlights the urgent need for increased transparency and stringent measures to safeguard consumers against fraud. As Unny seeks restitution, his case serves as a cautionary tale for others engaging in online transactions.
