Amazon Delivers Dirty Rice Bowl Instead Of Laptop Table, Ordered To Pay Rs 20,000 Fine

The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered e-commerce giant Amazon to pay a fine or Rs 20,000 to a customer who placed an order for a laptop table, but was delivered a rice bowl, in dirty condition.

The order last week came in an appeal filed by Amazon against the Gurdaspur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum's ruling that imposed a penalty of Rs 20,000 and also a direction to deliver the correct product to the customer, Bar and Bench, reported.

UNSPLASH

Amazon fined for delivering wrong product

While hearing the complaint filed by the customer, a resident of Gurdaspur, the District Consumer Forum had directed Amazon to pay Rs 5,000 for harassment and Rs 5,000 as litigation expenses to the consumer.

Additionally, it had imposed punitive damages of Rs 10,000 on Amazon and the retailer.

What Amazon argued

Amazon challenged this order at the state-level forum and argued that it could not be held liable for the incorrect delivery as under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, an intermediary cannot be held liable for third-party transactions. Therefore, it contended that only the retailer could be held liable.

Amazon also claimed that the consumer had raised the grievance after the 'return window' was closed. Amazon added that nevertheless, it had offered a refund.

UNSPLASH

The customer, however, claimed that he had flagged the incorrect delivery on time and had refused to return the product for a refund as he wanted a replacement, which he had confirmed was available in Amazon's inventory.

Amazon is answerable for delivery

While dismissing Amazon's appeal, the State Commission said that Amazon was acting as a representative of the retailer and hence, was answerable for the delivery of the wrong goods.

"It was bounden duty of the Appellant (Amazon) as facilitator to ensure that goods sold through any individual are manufactured as per quality standard. If the product purchased through the platform of Appellant was wrong it cannot escape its liability," the commision said, according to Bar and Bench.

Pexels

The Commission held that the seller was registered with Amazon and had used the 'Fulfilled by Amazon' service, meaning that the seller first sends products to Amazon's fulfillment centers, from where they are delivered to the consumers.

"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," the Commission said in its order.

For more news and current affairs from around the world, please visit Indiatimes News.