In a significant ruling reinforcing consumer rights in online shopping, a Mumbai suburban consumer commission has directed Amazon to refund the full cost of a defective television and pay additional compensation. The Mumbai (suburban) district consumer disputes redressal commission outrightly rejected the e-commerce giant’s claim that it is merely an 'intermediary' with no responsibility for product quality.
In an order last week, the commission, led by president Pradeep Kadu and member Gauri Kapse ruled that an online marketplace like Amazon cannot absolve itself of responsibility simply by describing itself as an intermediary, particularly when it actively facilitates sales, derives commercial benefit from transactions and engages directly with consumers after the sale.
In its final order, the commission directed Amazon to refund ₹16,499 to the complainant along with 6% interest per annum calculated from February 2018. It also ordered the company to pay ₹10,000 as compensation for mental agony and ₹5,000 towards legal expenses.
The commission held Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd (ASSPL) liable for deficiency in service for failing to resolve a customer's grievance regarding a faulty television purchased through its platform.
“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 brand but also on the credibility and assurance of the platform,” the commission observed.
In 2018, Goregaon-based TR Dhariwal purchased a 40-inch Full HD LED television through Amazon for ₹16,499. Upon delivery, the television was found to have poor sound output, inferior picture quality and a remote control that did not function at all.
Despite repeated emails and follow-ups, Mr Dhariwal alleged that Amazon declined to issue a refund or replacement and instead advised him to contact the manufacturer directly. The platform eventually closed the complaint without resolving the issue, prompting the customer to approach the consumer commission seeking a refund, compensation for mental agony, and legal costs.
Appearing before the commission as Amazon Seller Services, the company argued that it operates strictly as an intermediary marketplace facilitating transactions between third-party sellers and buyers. Its legal team contended that Amazon neither manufactures nor sells products and that, under its 'conditions of use', it provides only technical support and not product warranties.
The commission, however, rejected this argument, holding that once a product is sold through Amazon’s platform, the company assumes responsibility for ensuring that the product is free from defects and is serviceable.
Invoking the principle of vicarious liability, the commission says the online platform stands in a position of trust and derives commercial benefit from each sale. “Having voluntarily chosen to host, promote and facilitate the sale of the product, the platform assumes a fiduciary and statutory duty to ensure that the consumer receives defect-free goods and effective post-sale support,” it says.
The commission also took note of what it described as standardised email responses offering 'hollow assurances' without meaningful resolution, holding that such conduct amounted to a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
The ruling is an important reminder that large e-commerce platforms cannot escape accountability for defective products sold through their websites, particularly when consumers have no effective avenue for redress other than the platform itself.
Fraud Alert: Inside Telegram’s US$2Bn-a-month Chinese Marketplaces Scam Economy
Yogesh Sapkale,
09 January 2026
For a long time, we were told that the internet’s worst crimes lived deep in the shadows, buried inside the dark web, accessible only through Tor browsers and anonymous crypto wallets.
That story no longer holds.
Today, the...
Fraud Alert: LinkedIn Job Scam that Keeps Trapping Professionals
Yogesh Sapkale,
02 January 2026
Vedika, a 22-year-old engineering graduate, has been searching for her first job. She was contacted on LinkedIn by someone claiming to be a recruiter from a well-known IT services company. The profile of the recruiter looked authentic...
Fraud Alert: WhatsApp GhostPairing Scam Spreading through Trusted Contacts
Yogesh Sapkale,
26 December 2025
It started with a moment of confusion that felt almost trivial. A Mumbai-based accountant received a message from a colleague asking why he had sent her a strange photo link at a late hour. He hadn’t. A few hours later, his phone...
Fraud Alert: The True Cost of Weak Passwords
Yogesh Sapkale,
19 December 2025
Today, almost everyone is connected to the online world—by choice, by necessity, or simply because modern systems leave us with little alternative. Whether we are banking, shopping, working or socialising, our daily lives now run...
