The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban, has held Amazon and its seller services arm guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for failing to deliver a Rakhi ordered online. The Commission directed payment of ₹30,000 as compensation and ₹10,000 as litigation costs to the complainant.
Background:
Complainant Sheetal Kanakia filed a consumer complaint (CC/292/2019) against Amazon and M/s. Amazon Seller Services Private Limited under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. She ordered a ‘Motu Patlu Kids Rakhi’ via Amazon’s online platform on 2 August 2019, paying ₹100 for the same. The product was scheduled for delivery between 8 to 13 August 2019.
Despite repeated follow-ups, the Rakhi was not delivered. Instead, ₹100 was deposited back into the complainant’s bank account on 14 August 2019. The complainant discovered that the courier service listed—Poonam Courier—was permanently closed, and the tracking ID provided was fake. She alleged misleading information, failure to deliver, and absence of seller details.
Arguments:
- Complainant’s Submissions:
Sheetal Kanakia argued that Amazon was responsible for ensuring delivery of the product, having accepted the order and payment. She contended that Amazon failed to ensure the legitimacy of the seller and courier service, which led to emotional distress during the festival. - Amazon’s Submissions:
Opposite Party No. 2 (Amazon Seller Services) argued it merely operates as an online marketplace and facilitates third-party sales. It denied responsibility for the listing or delivery and reiterated its response to the legal notice dated 14 October 2019. No written statement was filed within the prescribed time.
Commission’s Analysis:
The bench, comprising Hon’ble Smt. Samindara R. Surve (President) and Hon’ble Shri Sameer S. Kamble (Member), observed that:
- The complainant qualifies as a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, having paid consideration for the product.
- Amazon accepted the order and failed to deliver the Rakhi. The tracking information was misleading, and the courier service was non-functional.
- There was no evidence to show that the ₹100 collected was forwarded to the seller, suggesting Amazon retained the amount.
- Amazon, despite claiming to be a facilitator, bears responsibility as the transaction and payment were processed through its platform.
The Commission held that “although the Opposite Party has acted as facilitator/intermediary, the amount of the said Rakhi was with it and hence responsible for its timely delivery,” and that non-delivery constituted “deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.”
Final Order:
- The complaint was partly allowed.
- Amazon and its seller services company were found guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
- They were directed to pay ₹30,000 as compensation and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs within 60 days of the order (dated 11 February 2025), failing which 6% interest per annum would apply.
Case Details:
- Case No.: CC/292/2019
- Complainant: Sheetal Kanakia
- Opposite Parties: Amazon.in and Amazon Seller Services Private Limited
- Commission: DCDRC Mumbai Suburban
