The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld a Rs.20,000 fine on Amazon and a retailer for delivering a ‘dirty’ rice bowl instead of a laptop table. Commission President, Justice Daya Chaudhary, emphasized Amazon’s duty to ensure product quality and dismissed claims of intermediary protection.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chandigarh: On Thursday, The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, located in Chandigarh, recently affirmed the imposition of a Rs.20,000 fine on Amazon and a retailer for delivering a ‘rice bowl in dirty condition’ instead of the customer’s ordered laptop table. State Commission President, Justice Daya Chaudhary, and Member Simarjot Kaur asserted that Amazon, as a representative of the retailer, is accountable for the incorrect delivery of goods.
“It was the bounden duty of the Appellant (Amazon) as a facilitator to ensure that goods sold through any individual are manufactured as per quality standard. If the product purchased through the platform of the Appellant was wrong, it cannot escape its liability,”
-stated the Commission in its order dated February 20.
ALSO READ: Indiabulls Housing Finance Revives Insolvency Plea Against Zee’s Subhash Chandra
The Commission, addressing an appeal by Amazon against a Gurdaspur District Commission order, upheld the Rs.20,000 penalty along with a directive to deliver the correct product to the customer. The District Commission had also instructed Amazon to pay Rs.5,000 for harassment, Rs.5,000 as litigation expenses to the consumer, and imposed punitive damages of Rs.10,000, to be deposited with the District Consumer Legal Aid.
In Amazon’s defense, it argued under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act that, as an intermediary, it cannot be held liable for third-party transactions, contending that only the retailer should be held responsible. Amazon further stated that the consumer’s grievance was raised after the ‘return window’ closed but acknowledged offering a refund.
Contrarily, the consumer asserted timely reporting and refusal to return the product for a refund, insisting on a replacement available in Amazon’s inventory.
ALSO READ: Ganga Pollution in Bihar | NGT Threatens to Summon Chief Secretary Over Delayed Report Submission
The Commission observed that Amazon failed to present an agreement between itself and the retailer, relying solely on its terms of service. Consequently, the Commission determined that Amazon cannot benefit from safe harbor protection meant for intermediaries, subject to restrictions outlined in Sub-Sections (2) and (3) of Section 79 of the IT Act.
Highlighting that the seller was registered with Amazon and utilized the ‘Fulfilled by Amazon’ service, the Commission emphasized that Amazon cannot escape responsibility under the guise of being an ‘intermediary’ and safe harbor protection.
“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,”
-affirmed the Commission, dismissing Amazon’s appeal and upholding the District Commission’s order.
CASE TITLE: [Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd v Jaspreet Kaur and Anr.]
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
