Marketplace Reimbursement Claims Brands Never File

There is money sitting inside every marketplace account that the brand is entitled to and never asks for. Not a rounding error. For brands doing meaningful volume across Amazon, Flipkart and quick commerce platforms, unclaimed reimbursements routinely run into lakhs a year, and almost all of it expires quietly because nobody filed within the window.

This is not a reconciliation article. Reconciling settlements is a separate discipline and we have covered it elsewhere. This is about the specific claim types, the specific evidence each one needs, and the specific windows that make the whole exercise use it or lose it.

Five claim types worth real money

Lost or damaged inbound. You dispatched a hundred and twenty units to a fulfilment centre. The platform received and checked in a hundred and twelve. Eight units are somewhere between your dock and their bin, and the system will not raise this for you. Inbound discrepancies are the single most common unclaimed category because the brand’s own dispatch record and the platform’s receiving record live in different systems and are never compared.

Warehouse damaged stock. Units that arrived intact and were subsequently damaged inside the fulfilment centre. These show up as inventory adjustments with a damage disposition. Some platforms auto reimburse a portion of these. Some do not. Either way, the brand needs to know what was adjusted, at what value, and whether reimbursement followed at a sensible rate.

Wrongly weighed shipments. Fulfilment and shipping fees are charged on the dimensional or actual weight the platform records at check in. If their recorded weight for an SKU exceeds your true packed weight, you are overpaying on every single unit shipped for as long as the wrong number sits in the catalogue. This is the highest leverage claim on the list because it is per unit and cumulative. Fixing one mis-measured fast mover can be worth more than every other claim combined.

Customer returns never returned to inventory. A customer was refunded. The unit was meant to travel back to the fulfilment centre. It never arrived, or it arrived and was never checked back in, or it was checked in and immediately written off. You paid for the refund and lost the unit. Platforms generally allow a claim when the return does not come back within their stated period, but the clock starts at the refund date and nobody is watching it.

Fee overcharges. Wrong category assignment pushing a referral fee to a higher slab, storage fees charged on units already removed, fulfilment fees charged at a size band your product does not belong to, and commission applied on amounts it should not apply to. These are catalogue data problems wearing a finance costume.

The evidence each claim needs

Claims fail on evidence far more often than on merit. Build the file before you open the case.

For inbound discrepancies: the shipment ID, the packing list showing units per carton, the invoice or delivery challan, the e-way bill where applicable, the transporter’s proof of delivery at the fulfilment centre, and the platform’s own receiving report showing the shortfall. The proof of delivery is the exhibit that decides it, so agree with your transporter upfront that signed PODs are captured and retained.

For warehouse damage: the inventory adjustment log with the date, the disposition code, the quantity and the SKU, plus your landed cost so you can check whether the reimbursement value offered is defensible. Reimbursement is usually valued at a platform determined figure rather than your MRP, so the argument is about method, not sentiment.

For weight discrepancies: this one needs physical evidence. Photograph the packed unit on a calibrated scale with the reading and the SKU label both visible in the same frame. Add the measured dimensions with a tape or measuring board in shot. Then show the platform’s recorded weight beside it. Without the photograph the claim is a claim. With it, it is a correction.

For returns not restocked: the order ID, the refund date and amount, the return tracking reference if one exists, and the inventory ledger showing no corresponding check in. Match refunds to restocks by order ID, not by aggregate counts, because aggregate counts hide the individual cases you can actually claim.

For fee overcharges: the fee line from the settlement report, the catalogue attributes that drove it, and the correct attributes with proof. Fix the catalogue first, then claim the past. Claiming without fixing means claiming the same thing again next month.

The habit that surfaces claims

None of this works as a project. It works as a cadence.

Run a weekly pass with three comparisons. Dispatched units against received units by shipment. Refunds issued against returns checked back into inventory by order ID. Recorded fulfilment weight against your master packed weight by SKU. Three queries, run every week, on every platform. Everything that falls out of them is a claim candidate.

Then run a monthly pass on inventory adjustment logs and fee lines, because those move slower and reward a longer look.

Keep a claims register. One row per case: platform, claim type, SKU or order ID, amount claimed, date filed, case reference, status, date closed, amount received. Without the register you will refile cases already settled, miss follow ups on cases the platform quietly parked, and be unable to tell whether the exercise is paying for itself. It usually is, comfortably, but you should be able to prove it.

Give it an owner. This work sits awkwardly between operations and finance, which is exactly why it never gets done. It belongs to whoever owns marketplace operations, with finance signing off on the recovered amounts.

Filing windows make this use it or lose it

Every platform limits how far back a claim can go. The windows differ by platform, by claim type and by programme, and they get revised in seller policy updates that arrive without fanfare. Some are counted from the transaction date, some from the shipment received date, some from the refund date. There is no single number to remember and anyone quoting one is guessing.

So do two things. First, read the current claim policy for each platform you sell on, this quarter, and write the windows into your own SOP with the date you checked. Recheck at least twice a year. Second, and more importantly, design your cadence so the window never binds. If you are running weekly comparisons, you will surface a claim within days of it arising and no window will be tight enough to matter. Brands that lose claims to expiry are almost always brands running an annual audit instead of a weekly habit.

The economics are unusually clean. The data is already in your account, the queries are the same every week, and the recovered amount drops straight to contribution margin. Very little else in marketplace operations pays that well for that little effort.