The Sonipat District Consumer Commission has ordered Amazon India and a smart watch manufacturer to pay Rs 13,300 in compensation and refund Rs 1,939 of the amount for non-delivery and non-refund of the Techking Smart Watch Z-60 Bluetooth.
A bench of president Vijay Singh and Members Shyam Lal and Deepa Jain was dealing with a plea of a 71-year-old senior citizen. The commission said that Amazon India, as an e-commerce marketplace, provided a platform to prospective buyers and sellers, and in this way automatically becomes a middlemen/intermediary to connect the two.
“It is a well-known fact that, being a middlemen/intermediary, Amazon India must be earning a part of the profit and not doing a “Free Service”; thus, responsible for contributory negligence and cannot escape from its liability in any way,” the commission noted in its May 20 order.
‘Amazon is intermediary’
- It may be observed that the complainant online ordered a Techking Smart Watch Z-60 Bluetooth from the company by a prepaid order of Rs 1,939, but he allegedly neither received the article nor the refund for the money paid to the opposite parties.
- Counsel for the complainant argued that Amazon is a well-reputed online shopping app. But the complainant, who is a senior citizen of 71 years, has suffered mental agony and harassment due to the wrongful act and conduct.
- Amazon is an “Intermediary” and provided ecommerce market place to facilitate sales transactions entered into and between the buyer and independent third-party sellers to sell their goods and services and interact with customers through a digital platform.
- It is clear that the complainant and the seller were not known to each other earlier.
71-year-old ordered smart watch, never received
The complainant, a 71-year-old senior citizen and ex-army man, purchased a watch, i.e., Techking Smart Watch Z-60 Bluetooth, from the ANS Enterprises by a prepaid order of Rs1939 in July, 2021, from an authorised seller, Amazon Online Shopping App.
It was averred that neither he has received the article nor the refund for the money paid to the opposite parties.
According to the complainant, he had contacted the OP many times and asked for the non-delivery of the article, i.e., a smart watch, but no satisfactory reply has been given by the opposite party.
He alleged that Amazon is a well-reputed online shopping app, but unfortunately, he has faced a disgusting experience while online shopping from the app. He claimed that he contacted them many times for either the delivery of the item or a refund of the payment, but in vain, and hence, he filed a consumer complaint.
Amazon’s stand
Appearing for Amazon India, advocate Deepak Hood opposed the complaint, stating that the complainant has incorrectly impleaded the answering respondent as an unnecessary party, where the correct entity operating the e-commerce marketplace http://www.amazon.in (e-commerce marketplace) is Amazon Seller Service Private Limited (ASSPL).
He argued that all transactions are independent transactions between the buyers and such independent third-party sellers. He added that all payments are made directly by such customers to the independent third-party sellers, and all products so transacted are delivered directly by the independent third-party sellers to such buyers.
The court noted that the notice issued to ASN Enterprises through registered post was not returned in any form; as such, it proceeded ex parte.
Expert speak
Dr Ashok R Patil, Vice Chancellor, National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi, is Chair Professor of Consumer Law and Practice (Ministry of Consumer Affairs, GoI) and Founder Director of the Online Consumer Mediation Centre (Ministry of Consumer Affairs, GoI).
He underlined the key amendments that brought online marketplaces such as Amazon within the ambit of consumer protection law. “The Ministry of Consumer Affairs, GoI, through the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, brought online marketplaces within the consumer protection framework. Recognising that consumers often rely on the platform’s reputation and may not know the identity or credibility of third-party sellers, the law imposes obligations relating to transparency, seller disclosures, and grievance redressal,” said Dr Patil.
Dr Ashok R Patil is an authority on the Consumer Protection Act and sees the law evolving in future.
The expert argued that the principle of fallback liability ensures that consumers are not left remediless when sellers fail to fulfil their obligations, reflecting the increasing accountability of e-commerce platforms that facilitate and profit from such transactions.
On whether he sees consumer protection law evolving in the future, Dr Patil answered in the affirmative, adding, “The Ministry of Consumer Affairs, GoI has already demonstrated its proactive approach through the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023, which seek to curb deceptive online practices such as false urgency, basket sneaking, subscription traps, confirm shaming, forced action, and drip pricing.”
According to Dr Patil, with the expansion of digital commerce, consumer protection law is likely to evolve further to address AI-driven decision-making, algorithmic transparency, data privacy, influencer marketing, and platform accountability.
“The focus will be on ensuring stronger consumer rights and effective remedies in the digital marketplace,” he added.
Ministry initiative
The Ministry of Consumer Affairs, GoI, through the Bureau of Indian Standards, notified the Indian Standard on “Online Consumer Reviews” in 2022 to safeguard consumers from fake and deceptive reviews in e-commerce. The framework promotes principles such as integrity, accuracy, transparency, and accountability, and requires platforms to adopt verification mechanisms to ensure that reviews are posted by genuine consumers and can be trusted by prospective buyers.
Significance
This judgment is significant because it holds e-commerce platforms jointly liable for failed deliveries, rejecting their “intermediary” defense. The Commission ruled that since platforms profit from transactions, they are responsible for contributory negligence and must protect consumers by blacklisting irresponsible sellers.
Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Haryana contact: 1800-180-2087) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
Commission noted that complainant and seller were not known to each other earlier, thus, Amazon are also responsible for contributory negligence and cannot escape from its liability, (AI-generated Image) 
Dr Ashok R Patil is an authority on the Consumer Protection Act and sees the law evolving in future.
Share
