District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Mumbai: While considering the instant consumer complaint filed against Amazon for failure to deliver a ‘Motu Patlu Kids Rakhi’ as ordered by the complainant; the Bench of Samindara R. Surve, (President)* and Sameer S. Kamble, (Member), held Amazon to be guilty for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices and directed them to pay Rs.30,000 towards compensation to the complainant along with Rs.10,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.
The DCDRC explained that since the delivery of Rakhi to the Complainant was to be done through Amazon, hence it is liable for the consequence of non-delivery of the said product and not doing so amounts to deficiency in service on its part.
Background:
The Complainant place the order for a ‘Motu Patlu Kids Rakhi’ on 2-8-2019 on Amazon by paying Rs.100, the seller being one Dhanashree Rakhi. The schedule for delivery was fixed between 8-8-2019 to13-8-2019. The Complainant accordingly followed up with the Opposite Party, who confirmed the delivery thereof on 13-8-2019. As per the tracking report, the said Rakhi was shipped on 25-7-2019 i.e. before the order was placed by the Complainant. From the Amazon website, the Complainant came to know that the Rakhi was to be sent by one Poonam Courier, however, the Complainant found that the said Courier company was permanently closed. The Complainant therefore continuously followed up for the said Rakhi with Amazon by sending the emails. However, Amazon failed and neglected to send the Rakhi and refunded Rs.100 in the bank account of the Complainant on 14-8-2019. On further perusal of the matter, the Complainant came to know that there are many people who have such nature of complaints against Amazon. Therefore, the Complainant sent a legal notice and sought compensation and non -compliance of the demand made therein filed the instant Complaint.
Commission’s Assessment:
Perusing the matter, the DCDRC pointed out that when the Complainant ordered the Rakhi by paying Rs.100 and Amazon accepted it and the Complainant paid the consideration for the Rakhi and therefore she became the Consumer as provided under Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Opposite Party who accepted the amount and agreed to send Rakhi, thus became the service provider.
The DCDRC further noted that instead of delivering the Rakhi, Amazon cancelled the transaction and refunded Rs 100 directly into the bank account of the Complainant. The DCDRC also noted Amazon’s contention that they are merely the facilitator and cannot control the sale transaction. However, the Commission pointed out that there was no document on record to show that the amount was paid over by Amazon to the said seller “Dhanashree Rakhi” which proved that Rs.100 was lying in its account only and it was not paid over it to the seller. Therefore, the subject transaction of sale of the said Rakhi is between Amazon and the Complainant and Amazon itself is responsible for delivery thereof to the Complainant.
The DCDRC emphasised that although Amazon is an online marketplace, and sought to contend that it acts as facilitator, however it is duty bound to the Complainant as well as to her money. Amazon earns the revenue each time a consumer clicks on its website. Moreover, the transactions thereof are being done as per the terms and conditions between the online portal company and the seller for a consideration. Therefore, it is the duty of Amazon that it should verify the whereabouts as well as the status of the seller before accepting the order of a respective product, as is providing service and enabling delivery of online contents to the end user.
Therefore, the DCDRC opined that although Amazon had acted as facilitator/intermediatory, the amount of the said Rakhi was with it and hence responsible for its timely delivery. And non doing it has committed deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practice.
Perusing the Complainant’s claim of Rs 4,50,000 towards the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the DCDRC stated that the Complainant did not produce any cogent evidence apart for stating that the said Rakhi was ordered for her brother’s son and non-delivery thereof caused emotional hurt and harassment to her. The Commission noted that a Rakhi is not such a commodity which is not available in the open market. However, since the Complainant had made out case for deficiency in service, she is entitled for the reasonable damages.
With the afore-stated assessment, the DCDRC deemed it fit to award sum of Rs 40,000 to the Complainant- Rs 30,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 as cost for proceedings.
[X v. Amazon.In, DCDRC/MS/ CC/292/2019, decided on 11-2-2025]
*Order by Samindara R. Surve, President
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Complainant in person
Opposite Party no. 1 — Ex-parte
Opposite Party no. 2 — Without Written Statement / Adv. Nadeem M.S. Shaikh
