Mumbai Consumer Court Rejects Amazon's Intermediary Claim, Orders Refund and Compensation
A district consumer dispute redressal commission in Mumbai has delivered a significant ruling against Amazon. The court has directed the e-commerce giant to refund the cost of a faulty LED TV and pay compensation to the customer. This decision firmly rejects Amazon's argument that it acts merely as an intermediary platform.
Court Slams Hollow Assurances and Standardized Emails
The commission, presided over by President Pradeep G Kadu and member Gauri M Kapse, issued its order on January 6, 2026. It found Amazon India guilty of failing to resolve the customer's grievance. The court criticized the company for providing only email correspondence with what it termed hollow assurances.
Repeated standardized email responses without a meaningful resolution constitute a clear deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the commission stated. It emphasized that online marketplaces cannot escape responsibility by simply labeling themselves as intermediaries.
Details of the Consumer's Complaint
The case originated from a purchase made on February 14, 2018. The complainant bought an LED TV from Amazon for Rs 16,999. Upon delivery, the product exhibited multiple defects.
- Poor sound quality
- Faulty picture quality
- A non-functioning remote control
The customer made repeated complaints from February to April 2018 through phone calls and emails. Amazon initially gave assurances that the product would be replaced. However, no replacement or refund was provided.
On April 16, 2018, Amazon sent an email denying the refund or replacement request. The company advised the complainant to raise the issue directly with the TV's brand or manufacturer. This prompted the customer to approach the consumer commission, alleging unfair trade practices and service deficiency.
Amazon's Defense and the Court's Rebuttal
In its response, Amazon argued that it was only an intermediary facilitating transactions between third-party sellers and buyers. The company stated that tax invoices were issued by the sellers, making it a transaction solely between the buyer and seller. Amazon also pointed to its conditions of use, which clarify it provides only technical support.
The commission thoroughly examined the evidence presented during the proceedings. The complainant submitted proof of purchase and all correspondence with Amazon regarding the faulty TV. This evidence showed that Amazon had acknowledged the product was defective. The company had apologized for the inconvenience and confirmed the seller's agreement for a replacement. Amazon also admitted to escalating the issue to the supplier and recognized the complainant as its customer. The evidence confirmed the delivered TV was still under warranty.
Despite repeated assurances, no effective remedial action was taken, the commission observed. Amazon failed to produce any evidence showing concrete follow-up with the seller or manufacturer.
Court Establishes Key Legal Principles
The ruling establishes important principles for e-commerce liability in India. The commission stated that once a product is sold through an online platform, the platform assumes responsibility for ensuring the product is free from defects and serviceable. The principle of vicarious liability applies squarely in such cases.
An online marketplace like Amazon cannot absolve itself of responsibility merely by describing itself as an intermediary, the order explained. This is especially true when it actively facilitates the sale, receives commercial benefit, and engages directly with consumers after the sale.
The commission highlighted that consumers purchasing goods online often lack direct access to manufacturers or service centers. The online platform becomes the only visible and accessible entity. Consumers rely not only on the product brand but also on the credibility and assurance of the platform itself.
By voluntarily choosing to host, promote, and facilitate the sale of the product, Amazon assumes a fiduciary and statutory duty, the court asserted. This duty requires ensuring consumers receive defect-free goods and effective post-sale support.
Specific Directions and Penalties
The Mumbai consumer commission issued clear directives to Amazon.
- Refund the full cost of the TV (Rs 16,999) along with 6% interest per annum from February 14, 2018.
- Pay compensation of Rs 10,000 for the mental agony suffered by the complainant.
- Pay Rs 5,000 towards the legal expenses incurred.
The total compensation amounts to Rs 15,000. The company must comply with this order within 45 days. The commission also instructed the complainant to return the defective TV to Amazon after the company fulfills the order's directives.
This ruling serves as a strong precedent, reinforcing consumer rights in the digital marketplace. It clarifies that e-commerce platforms bear significant responsibility for the products sold through their websites, regardless of their intermediary claims.
