Vishakhapatnam District Commission Holds Amazon, Its Seller Liable For Failure To Initiate Return Of Product
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) bench of G Venkateswari (President), P Vijaya Durga (Member) and Karaka Ramana Babu (Member) held Amazon and its seller liable for deficiency in services due to their failure to facilitate the return of a product despite promising to do so. Brief Facts: The Complainant purchased a "Cubelelo YJ...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) bench of G Venkateswari (President), P Vijaya Durga (Member) and Karaka Ramana Babu (Member) held Amazon and its seller liable for deficiency in services due to their failure to facilitate the return of a product despite promising to do so.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant purchased a "Cubelelo YJ MGO 2*2 stickerless Magnetic Speed Cube Magic 2*2*2 Puzzle Toy" for Rs. 949/- from Amazon. The product was delivered in July 2020, but the Complainant decided to return it. Despite multiple reminders, Amazon failed to pick up the item. The product remained unused and in the Complainant's possession. The Complainant claimed that Amazon's failure to arrange the return pickup constituted negligence and a deficiency in service.
The Complainant issued a legal notice to Amazon and Brainlytic Solution Pvt. Ltd (“Seller”) demanding a pickup or a refund with interest and compensation. Amazon responded stating it was not responsible for the pickup and placed the liability on the Seller. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (“District Commission”) against Amazon and the seller.
In response, Amazon claimed that its role is limited to facilitating sales as an online marketplace under the Consumer Protection Act 2019, and the actual sale was between the Complainant and the seller. Amazon argued it is not responsible for the transaction's fulfilment, as the seller handled the product's sale, packing, shipping, and delivery. Amazon stated that the complaint was misdirected since the seller was liable for the return pickup failure, not Amazon, and argued that the Complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on Amazon's part.
The Seller didn't appear before the District Commission for the proceedings.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission noted that Amazon served as the electronic service provider to the Complainant, and the Complainant relied on Amazon's advertisement to make the purchase. The Complainant did not know the identity of the third-party seller at the time of payment, as the seller's name was not displayed before ordering. The District Commission held that Amazon played a crucial role in the transaction, including payment processing, which the Complainant completed through Amazon Pay.
The District Commission held that Amazon promised a return option and a refund upon receiving the returned item. However, it held that neither party arranged for the return pickup which demonstrated negligence and service deficiency. It held that the absence of a direct contract did not bar the Complainant from maintaining a complaint against Amazon, as Amazon was the service provider and receiver of the payment. It held that Amazon cannot evade responsibility by claiming to be merely a facilitator, as Amazon's logo on the invoice and its role in the transaction establish its involvement.
Consequently, the District Commission held Amazon and the Seller liable for failure to pick up the return promptly. Therefore, the District Commission directed Amazon and the Seller to pay Rs. 949/- for the product cost, Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and financial loss, and Rs. 3,000/- for litigation expenses.
Case Title: Jamana Vinay Kumar vs Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd and Anr.
Case Number: 138/2021
Date of Pronouncement: 02.05.2024