- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Consumer Commission orders Facebook to pay damages for non-delivery of product; Bombay High Court puts a stay
Consumer Commission orders Facebook to pay damages for non-delivery of product; Bombay High Court puts a stay
The order of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Gondia was recently stayed by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court. The order directed Facebook India to pay an amount of ₹599 towards an alleged undeserved product and ₹25000 for costs towards mental agony.
The single judge bench issued a notice to the respondents staying the order of the commission for four weeks with a condition that the company will deposit the requisite fees in Court.
The Complaint was filed by a man for non-delivery of products purchased online through an advertisement on the Facebook website. Aggrieved by the decision of the Commission, Facebook India along with its parent company META Platforms Inc. approached the High Court assailing the commission order.
In the petition, Facebook challenged the order by stating that the complaint was not maintainable and if there is any grievance, the same ought to be raised against Mariya Studio i.e. the entity, which had allegedly duped the complainant.
The company pointed out to the definition of "intermediaries" from the Information Technology Act to reason that they have immunity.
The company also added that it did not qualify as an e-commerce entity or marketplace e-commerce entity since it does not provide a platform for electronic commerce.
The complainant had approached the commission after it was found that Marya Studio, the seller, had failed to supply shoes to the complainant.
The complainant tried calling the customer care where he claimed another person further duped him of ₹7,568.
The complainant had sought compensation of ₹1,27,568 for the agony he had faced.