Explore Business Standard
A consumer commission has asked Amazon to pay a refund to a TV buyer along with compensation, holding that an e-commerce platform cannot avoid liability for a defective product by claiming to be a "mere intermediary" and not the actual seller. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (suburban Mumbai) on January 6 held Amazon Seller Services Private Limited (ASSPL) guilty of deficiency in service for resolving the issue. The commission, led by president Pradeep Kadu and member Gauri Kapse, ordered ASSPL to refund the customer, stressing that an online marketplace "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
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking to declare that consumers have a "right to know" about the quality, purity and certification of products, besides details of distributors and sellers for redressal against unfair restrictive trade practices. It has also sought directions to the Centre and the states to ensure that every distributor, trader and shop owner displays details of registration, including name, address, phone number and number of employees at the entry gate in bold letters on a display board visible to people. The plea is slated to come up for hearing on July 21 before a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta. The petition filed by petitioner Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay said "right to know" was crucial for consumers to make informed choices and to protect themselves from unfair or restrictive trade practices and unscrupulous exploitation. "Right to know helps consumers avoid falling prey to a fraudulent or deceptive distributor, dealer, trader, sel