In a significant ruling for online shoppers, the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has delivered a strong rebuke to Amazon India. The commission ordered the e-commerce giant to pay Rs 40,000 to a customer who purchased a defective television. This decision firmly dismisses Amazon's repeated argument that it acts merely as a middleman with no responsibility for product quality.
Commission Rejects Intermediary Defense
The commission stated clearly that an online marketplace like Amazon cannot escape responsibility by calling itself an intermediary. This is especially true when the platform actively facilitates sales, earns commercial benefits, and deals directly with consumers after a purchase. The commission found Amazon guilty of failing to resolve the complainant's grievance properly. It noted that the company only engaged in email correspondence with hollow assurances, offering no real solution.
Platform Bears Responsibility for Products Sold
The ruling emphasized that once a product sells through an online platform, that platform assumes responsibility for ensuring the product is free from defects and fully serviceable. The principle of vicarious liability applies directly here. As the commission explained, the online service provider holds a position of trust and gains commercial benefit from each sale, making it accountable.
Consumers buying goods online often lack direct access to manufacturers or service centers. The online platform becomes the only visible and accessible entity for them. Shoppers rely not just on the product brand but also on the credibility and assurance provided by the platform itself. By choosing to host, promote, and facilitate sales, the platform takes on both a fiduciary and a statutory duty. It must ensure consumers receive defect-free goods and effective post-sale support.
Deficiency in Service and Legal Liability
The commission criticized Amazon's handling of the complaint. Sending repeated standardized email responses without achieving a meaningful resolution constitutes a clear deficiency in service. Amazon's failure to either replace or refund the defective product, despite full knowledge of the defect, attracts liability under the Consumer Protection Act.
The total compensation of Rs 40,000 includes a refund of the purchase price along with interest. It also covers compensation for mental agony and reimbursement of legal expenses incurred by the consumer.
Details of the Consumer Complaint
The complaint originated from T R Dhariwal, a resident of Goregaon, who filed the case in 2021. Dhariwal purchased a Dektron 40-inch Full HD LED TV through Amazon for Rs 16,499. Upon delivery, he discovered multiple defects: poor sound quality, substandard picture quality, and a completely non-functional remote control.
Despite months of emails and phone calls, and initial promises of a replacement, Amazon eventually directed Dhariwal to contact the manufacturer directly. The company then closed the case without providing any resolution. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, Dhariwal approached the consumer commission seeking a refund, compensation, and coverage of litigation costs.
Amazon's Legal Arguments Dismissed
Amazon, appearing legally as Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, argued before the commission that it operates strictly as an intermediary e-commerce marketplace. The company contended that the sale contract exists solely between the buyer and the third-party seller. It pointed to its Conditions of Use, which state the platform provides only technical support rather than product warranties.
The commission thoroughly rejected these arguments. It affirmed that platforms facilitating commerce cannot hide behind intermediary labels when they profit from transactions and interact directly with consumers. This ruling sets an important precedent for e-commerce accountability in India.
