Feedback

Amazon Held Liable for Delivery of Wrong Product: Punjab Consumer Commission Dismisses Appeal

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Upholds District Commission's Decision Against Amazon

The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the District Consumer Commission's ruling against Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., holding it liable for the delivery of a wrong product and subsequent harassment caused to the complainant. The commission dismissed Amazon's appeal and reaffirmed the complainant's rights under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case Background

Complainant:

• Name: Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, an Assistant Professor residing in Gurdaspur, Punjab.
• Complaint: She ordered a foldable laptop desk (black) from Amazon.in on May 12, 2021, but received a dirty rice bowl instead.

Events:

• Delivery: Product was delivered on May 18, 2021.
• Replacement Request: Ms. Kaur immediately contacted Amazon’s customer care for a replacement. Despite her efforts, the replacement was not processed within Amazon's stipulated return window.
• Refund Offer: On June 27, 2021, Amazon offered a full refund, but the complainant insisted on receiving the correct product.

Consumer Forum Complaint:

• Ms. Kaur approached the District Consumer Commission, seeking:
  • Refund of ₹380 (product price).
  • ₹20,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
  • ₹5,000 as litigation costs.
• The District Commission partly allowed the complaint, ordering Amazon to:
  • Arrange delivery of the correct product.
  • Pay ₹5,000 for harassment and ₹5,000 as litigation costs.
  • Deposit ₹10,000 as punitive damages in the District Consumer Legal Aid Account.

Amazon's Appeal

Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal against the District Commission's decision, citing:

Role as an Intermediary:

• Amazon argued that it merely operates as an e-commerce marketplace and is not liable for third-party transactions under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000.

Return Policy:

• The complainant did not return the incorrect product within the stipulated return window.

Privity of Contract:

• The contract of sale was between the seller (Alpha Bita) and the complainant, not Amazon.

Conditions of Use:

• Amazon's terms clearly state that it is not liable for issues arising from transactions on its platform.

Commission's Findings

The State Commission rejected Amazon's appeal and upheld the District Commission’s order based on the following:

Consumer Rights:

• The complainant, Ms. Kaur, was a consumer under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as she availed of Amazon’s services to purchase a product.
• Amazon cannot escape its liability by claiming to be an intermediary.

Deficiency in Service:

• Amazon, through its "Fulfilled by Amazon" (FBA) service, stored, packed, and delivered the product. The platform was directly involved in the transaction and bore responsibility for ensuring the correct product was delivered.

Violations of Consumer Protection Act:

• Amazon’s refusal to replace the product despite admitting the delivery error was a deficiency in service and amounted to harassment.
• Amazon’s internal policies and return windows cannot override statutory consumer rights.

Failure to Provide Evidence:

• Amazon did not produce agreements or evidence demonstrating due diligence in verifying the seller’s authenticity or ensuring quality control.

No Safe Harbor Protection:

• Amazon failed to meet the conditions for immunity under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, as it actively participated in the transaction through its FBA service.

Commission’s Order

The Commission dismissed Amazon’s appeal and upheld the District Commission’s order with the following directives:

Delivery of Correct Product:

• Amazon must ensure delivery of the ordered product through the seller or another vendor.

Compensation:

• Pay ₹5,000 for mental agony and harassment.
• Pay ₹5,000 as litigation costs.

Punitive Damages:

• Deposit ₹10,000 into the District Consumer Legal Aid Account.

Compliance Deadline:

• Amazon must comply within 45 days of receiving the certified copy of the order. Failure to comply will result in 9% annual interest on the awarded amounts from the date of complaint filing.

Remittance of Deposits:

• The amount deposited by Amazon with the State Commission during the appeal process will be transferred to the District Commission for further action.

Key Takeaways

E-Commerce Accountability:

• Online marketplaces like Amazon are responsible for ensuring the authenticity and quality of products sold through their platforms.
• Claims of being a mere intermediary cannot absolve them of liability for deficiencies in service.

Consumer Rights:

• Consumers can seek redressal for delivery errors and associated harassment, regardless of e-commerce platforms' internal policies.

Precedent for Compliance: