DCDRC Holds Amazon And Brainlytic Solution Liable For Deficiency In Services

DCDRC Holds Amazon And Brainlytic Solution Liable For Deficiency In Services

They failed to pick up the return product and refund the amount to the complainant

The Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, bench of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, (DCDRC) has held Amazon and its seller, Brainlytic Solution Pvt Ltd, liable for deficiency in services.

The bench comprising G Venkateswari (President), P Vijaya Durga (Member) and Karaka Ramana Babu (Member) stated that the two companies failed to facilitate the return of a product despite promising.

The Case:

The complainant purchased a ‘Cubelelo YJ MGO 2*2 stickerless Magnetic Speed Cube Magic 2*2*2 Puzzle Toy’ for Rs.949 from Amazon.

Delivered in July 2020, the complainant decided to return the product.

Despite several reminders, Amazon failed to pick up the item, which remained unused and in the complainant's possession. The complainant claimed that Amazon's failure to arrange the return pickup constituted negligence and deficiency in services.

The complainant issued a legal notice to Amazon and Brainlytic demanding a pickup or a refund with interest and compensation.

Amazon responded by stating that it was not responsible for the pickup and placed the liability on the seller.

Aggrieved by the situation, the complainant approached the DCDRC.

Amazon claimed that its role was limited to facilitating sales as an online marketplace under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The actual sale was between the complainant and the seller. It added not being responsible for the transaction, as the seller handled the product's sale, packing, shipping, and delivery. Thus, the complaint was misdirected.

However, the seller did not appear for the proceedings before the District Commission.

The DCDRC noted that Amazon served as the electronic service provider to the complainant, who relied on Amazon's advertisement to make the purchase. The complainant did not know the identity of the third-party seller at the time of payment, as the seller's name was not displayed before placing the order.

The District Commission held that Amazon played a crucial role in the transaction, including payment processing, which the complainant completed through Amazon Pay.

The Commission noted that Amazon promised a return option and a refund upon receiving the item.

However, neither party arranged for the return pickup, which demonstrated negligence and service deficiency. The absence of a direct contract did not bar the complainant from maintaining a complaint against Amazon, as it was the service provider and receiver of the payment.

The bench held that Amazon could not evade responsibility by claiming to be merely a facilitator, as its logo on the invoice and its role in the transaction established its involvement.

Thus, the District Commission held Amazon and the seller liable for failure to pick up the returned item. It directed Amazon and the seller to pay Rs.949 to the complainant for the product cost, Rs.5,000 as compensation for mental agony and financial loss, and Rs.3,000 for litigation expenses.