Case Title: Kethavath Naresh vs Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and Anr.
Case No.: Consumer Case No.38 OF 2023
In a recent verdict by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I in Hyderabad, Telangana, Amazon and its seller, Saraswati Book House, were found liable for charging more than the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) for a book. The Commission, led by Mrs B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President), Mrs C. Lakhsmi Prasanna (Member), and Mr B. Raja Reddy (Member), underlined that digital platforms have a duty to ensure their sellers comply with the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020.
The case began when Kethavath Naresh purchased a book called “A History of Ancient and Medieval India” from Saraswathi Book House via Amazon. Despite shelling out Rs. 1,517 for the book, he noticed that the MRP was much lower, at Rs. 845. Feeling cheated, Naresh lodged a complaint with the District Commission, accusing both Amazon and the Seller of deficient service.
Naresh argued that Amazon, as an online marketplace, had failed to ensure that its sellers adhered to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. He highlighted that Amazon, as an intermediary, had neglected to verify the honesty and compliance of third-party sellers.
Amazon defended itself by stating that its role was primarily to facilitate online transactions between buyers and independent sellers. It clarified that it had no direct involvement in product pricing, listing specifications, or discounting. The Seller did not appear before the Commission and was proceeded against ex-parte.
After examining the case, the Commission found that the discovery of a lower MRP post-purchase raised serious questions about unfair trade practices and service deficiency. It pointed out that Amazon’s role as an intermediary did not excuse it from accountability. The Commission referred to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020, which prohibit e-commerce entities from manipulating prices for undue profit. It concluded that Amazon could not escape liability for the service deficiency and unfair trade practices apparent in this case.
The Commission underscored that e-commerce platform sellers must avoid unfair trade practices. It held both Amazon and the Seller responsible for their roles in the transaction. The Commission ordered Amazon and the Seller to jointly refund Rs. 672, the excess amount charged over the book’s MRP. It also ordered them to pay Rs. 10,000 as costs and compensation suffered by Naresh.
In conclusion, this judgment reinforces the responsibility of e-commerce platforms and their sellers to adhere to fair trade practices and consumer protection laws. It serves as a reminder that digital marketplaces cannot shirk their duty to ensure the honesty and compliance of their sellers, and consumers have strong legal recourse in cases of service deficiency and unfair pricing.
