Mumbai court orders refund for faulty TV, rejects Amazon’s ‘intermediary’ excuse

“An online marketplace like Amazon cannot absolve itself of responsibility merely by describing itself as an intermediary, especially when it actively facilitates the sale, receives commercial benefit, and engages directly with consumers post-sale. A consumer purchasing goods online does not have direct access to the manufacturer or service centre. The only visible and accessible entity is the online platform. The consumer relies not only on the brand but also on the credibility and assurance of the platform,” president Pradeep G Kadu and member Gauri M Kapse of the Mumbai Suburban district consumer dispute redressal commission said in its order passed on January 6.

The complainant in the case had ordered an LED TV from Amazon on February 14, 2018 for Rs 16,999. The delivered product was defective and the complainant made repeated complaints from February to April 2018 about the poor sound and picture quality and a non-functioning remote control. The complaints were made through phone calls and emails by the customer. The complaint alleged that the company had initially given assurances that the product will be replaced but neither was it replaced nor a refund was given. On April 16, 2018, the complainant received an email from Amazon stating that the refund/replacement request has been denied and advised the complainant to raise an issue with the brand or manufacturer of the TV. Following this, the complainant approached the consumer commission alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

Amazon in its response to the complaint said that it was merely an intermediary which facilitates transactions between independent third-party sellers and buyers. It said that tax invoices for sales were issued by the sellers and it was therefore a transaction between the buyer and seller. It further said that its ‘conditions of use’ make it clear that the company only provides technical support.

During the proceedings, the complainant submitted proof of purchase as well as correspondence with the company about the faulty product. The commission said that this proof shows that Amazon had acknowledged the defective nature of the product, apologised for the inconvenience and also confirmed the seller’s agreement for replacement. It also admitted escalation of the issue to the supplier and recognised the complainant as its customer. It also said the evidence shows that the delivered TV was within the warranty.

“While perusing the facts in the case, it is observed that despite repeated assurances, no effective remedial action was taken. The Opposite Party (Amazon) failed to produce any evidence showing concrete follow-up with the seller or manufacturer,” the commission said. Once the product was sold through their online platform, it is assumed that they own responsibility for ensuring that the product was free from defects and serviceable, it said adding that the principle of vicarious liability squarely applies.

“Having voluntarily chosen to host, promote, and facilitate the sale of the product, the Opposite Party assumes a fiduciary and statutory duty to ensure that the consumer receives defect-free goods and effective post-sale support. The repeated standardised email responses without meaningful resolution amount to a deficiency in service. The failure to either replace or refund the defective product, despite full knowledge of the defect, attracts liability under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019,” it added.

It directed the company to refund the cost of the TV along with 6 per cent interest from February 14, 2018, and pay compensation of Rs 10,000 towards mental agony and Rs 5,000 towards legal expenses, directing compliance within 45 days. It asked the complainant to return the TV after the compliance of the order.