Consumer Court slaps penalty on Amazon after dirty rice bowl delivered instead of laptop table

The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh recently upheld the imposition of a fine of ₹20,000 on Amazon and a retailer for delivering a 'rice bowl in dirty condition' instead of a laptop table ordered by the customer [Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd v Jaspreet Kaur and Anr.]..State Commission President, Justice Daya Chaudhary and Member Simarjot Kaur observed that Amazon was acting as a representative of the retailer and hence, was answerable for the delivery of the wrong goods.."It was bounden duty of the Appellant (Amazon) as facilitator to ensure that goods sold through any individual are manufactured as per quality standard. If the product purchased through the platform of Appellant was wrong it cannot escape its liability," the Commission said in its order dated February 20..The Commission was hearing an appeal by Amazon against an order of the Gurdaspur District Commission (district consumer disputes redressal forum) that imposed a penalty of ₹20,000 on Amazon and the retailer along with a direction to deliver the correct product to the customer.The District Commission had directed Amazon to pay ₹5,000 for harassment and ₹5,000 as litigation expenses to the consumer. Additionally, it had imposed punitive damages of ₹10,000 on Amazon and the retailer, which was to be deposited with the District Consumer Legal Aid..In its appeal before the State Commission, Amazon argued that it could not be held liable for the incorrect delivery as under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, an intermediary cannot be held liable for third-party transactions. Therefore, it contended that only the retailer could be held liable.Amazon also claimed that the consumer had raised the grievance after the 'return window' was closed. Amazon added that nevertheless, it had offered a refund..On the other hand, the consumer claimed that he had flagged the incorrect delivery on time and had refused to return the product for a refund as he wanted a replacement, which he had confirmed was available in Amazon's inventory, .The Commission noted that Amazon had only placed its terms of service on record, without placing an agreement between it and the retailer. Thus, the Commission determined that Amazon could not benefit from safe harbor protection meant for intermediaries, which was subject to restrictions as provided under Sub-Sections (2) and (3) of Section 79 of IT Act.The Commission further noted that the seller was registered with Amazon and had used the 'Fulfilled by Amazon' service, meaning that the seller first sends products to Amazon's fulfillment centers, from where they are delivered to the consumers. "Therefore, in said terms Appellant/OP No.1 (Amazon) cannot escape from its responsibility under the garb of ‘intermediary’ and safe harbor protection under Section 79 of IT Act, 2000," the Commission held..Accordingly, it dismissed Amazon's appeal and upheld the order of the District Commission..[Read Order]