Ruling that an e-commerce firm cannot “escape liability” as “mere intermediary” in an online purchase, a consumer commission has found the platform and a television manufacturing company guilty of deficiency in service after a defective TV was delivered to a customer.

The manufacturer’s defence of attempting to resolve the issue was not supported by substantial proof, indicating a “lackadaisical approach”, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai said in an order passed earlier this month.

It ordered the e-commerce company and the manufacturer to refund Rs 13,999 paid for the defective TV, along with interest, as well as give additional compensation of Rs 15,000 for mental agony and inconvenience and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.

The complainant had purchased an LED TV via the e-commerce platform on February 19, 2021, but it soon began throwing up technical glitches, including power failure, sound issues and display defects. Repeated attempts to seek redressal from the manufacturer and the online seller were in vain, as no effective resolution or replacement was provided. The complainant then approached the commission alleging a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

The e-commerce platform contended that it merely operates as an online intermediary facilitating transactions between sellers and consumers and does not sell or manufacture goods, adding that the complainant did not utilise the 10-day replacement policy, following which the responsibility shifted to the manufacturer.

The platform asserted it was not a “service provider” under the Consumer Protection Act. The TV company claimed the product was covered under warranty, with concerns attended to as per standard terms. The firm attributed delays or non-functionality to misuse, mishandling, or conditions beyond its control. The commission’s order said the product malfunctioned shortly after purchase and timely complaints were made.

“The TV company’s defence that it attempted to resolve the complaint is not supported by any substantial proof, such as service visit reports or replacement records. Rather, the correspondence placed on record suggests a lackadaisical approach by the manufacturer’s customer service,” the commission held in the order.

The commission cited the failure to repair or replace the defective product under warranty as “deficiency in service” and “unfair trade practice”. Addressing the e-commerce firm’s role, the commission noted the invoice bore the platform’s branding and that customer service was routed through its platform. Hence, it “cannot escape liability”, the commission said, adding that Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules 2020 mandate e-commerce entities to ensure sellers fulfil obligations to consumers.

Citing previous Supreme Court rulings, the commission said the platform cannot escape liability as a “mere intermediary” given its active role in the sale and post-sale process. The e-commerce firm and TV manufacturer were jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service, the commission stated.

This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever

"Exciting news! Mid-day is now on WhatsApp Channels Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!