Panchkula District Commission Holds Amazon Liable For Failure To Refund Damaged Foot Massager, Orders Refund And Compensation

Brief Facts:

Ms. Mamta Rani (“Complainant”) placed an order via the website of Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd (“Amazon”) for two items: the Veet Sensitive Touch Expert Trimmer and the OSIM Ustiletto Electric Foot Massager for pain relief (white), with a combined cost of Rs. 40,999/-. Among these, the latter product amounted to Rs. 39,000/-. Payment for both items was made upon booking. Upon receipt, the Complainant discovered that the OSIM Ustiletto Electric Foot Massager was severely damaged due to the packaging being torn and damaged. The Complainant made several requests for replacement to Amazon but didn't receive any response from it. An email from Amazon on June 16, 2020, stated that it is in a refund process for the damaged product, with a stipulated timeframe for crediting the amount. However, the Complainant didn't receive any refund. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Amazon.

In response, Amazon argued that its role is limited to facilitators, operating as intermediaries between buyers and third-party sellers on the e-commerce platform. Citing Section 79 of the IT Act, it claimed exemption from liability as intermediaries. The sale transaction, it argued, was exclusively between the Complainant and the third-party seller, Primarc Pecan Retail Private Limited (“Seller”). It claimed that it, on behalf of the complainant, communicated the grievance to the seller, who, after investigation, denied any refund or replacement, asserting that the product was delivered intact. Additionally, it accused the Complainant of being an abusive user of the e-commerce platform, alleging repeated demands for concessions from various third-party sellers.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission held that the role of Amazon in the transaction extended beyond that of mere facilitators or intermediaries. It held that the order placement and subsequent return request were made directly with Amazon, thereby negating the claim of being mere intermediaries.

The District Commission noted that the return request for the damaged product was accepted by Amazon. However, subsequently, on June 24, 2020, Amazon took a completely different stance and denied the refund or replacement. Despite claims of investigation, the District Commission held that Amazon didn't provide any substantive evidence supporting the contention that the product was delivered intact. Therefore, the District Commission held Amazon liable for deficiency in services.

Consequently, the District Commission directed Amazon to refund the sum of Rs. 39,000/- to the Complainant, representing the cost of the damaged product, along with interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint until realization. Amazon was also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment along with an amount of Rs. 7,500/- as litigation expenses.