Amazon, Apple, Seller Jointly Liable For Deficiency In Service: Jodhpur Consumer Commission Orders Refund Of ₹61,999 For Defective iPhone
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur, has directed Amazon India, Apple India, and the seller, Darshita Aashiyana Pvt. Ltd., to jointly refund ₹61,999 to a consumer who received a power bank instead of the iPhone 12 she ordered. The Commission held all three parties jointly liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, further directing them to pay ₹10,000 as compensation for mental harassment and ₹5,000 as litigation costs. The Bench comprising Dr. Yatish Kumar Sharma (President) and Dr. Anuradha Vyas (Member) observed that when an e-commerce platform manages the entire transaction and delivery process, it ceases to be a mere intermediary and assumes the role of a service provider under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Also Read: Delhi Consumer Court Raps Amazon, Orders ₹70,000 Refund For Delivering Wrong Laptop
Background
The complainant, Jyoti Bhati, placed an online order for an iPhone 12 (128 GB) on Amazon’s marketplace by paying ₹61,999 through UPI. The product was shown as sold by Darshita Aashiyana Pvt. Ltd., an independent third-party seller. However, upon receiving the delivery on 24 January 2022, she discovered that instead of the iPhone, she had been sent an EVM brand power bank worth approximately ₹1,000. After her grievance was not resolved through customer support channels, she filed a complaint before the District Commission against Amazon India, Apple India Pvt. Ltd., and the seller, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
Contentions
Amazon argued that it merely acted as an intermediary facilitating transactions between independent sellers and buyers, and that it did not sell, own, or dispatch the product itself. It claimed that since the sale was directly between the complainant and the seller, Amazon could not be held responsible for the incorrect product.
Apple India also contended that it was not involved in the transaction and bore no liability, as the purchase was made through a third-party seller. The seller, Darshita Aashiyana Pvt. Ltd., did not appear before the Commission despite service of notice.
Findings Of The Commission
After examining the evidence and transaction records, the Commission found that the order, payment, and delivery were all facilitated through Amazon’s platform, which also processed the UPI payment on behalf of the seller. It concluded that Amazon played an active and integral role in the transaction and thus could not escape liability by portraying itself as a mere intermediary.
The Bench held that Amazon was a “service provider” under Section 2(17) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and was therefore bound to provide quality and reliable services to consumers. “Sending a power bank worth ₹1,000 in place of a high-value iPhone worth ₹61,999 constitutes a clear case of deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice,” the Commission observed.
The Commission also referred to Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Prabhat Sinha (2022), where the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) held that e-commerce platforms that control the entire sales process — from listing and payment to logistics and delivery — cannot avoid responsibility by claiming to be intermediaries. Likewise, reliance was placed on Apple India Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajesh Sharma (2021), where both the brand company and the platform were held accountable for the loss suffered by a consumer. Applying these precedents, the Commission reasoned that when multiple entities jointly participate in providing an online purchase experience, they share collective responsibility for service failures.
Relief Granted
Holding the three opposite parties — Amazon India, Apple India, and Darshita Aashiyana Pvt. Ltd. — jointly and severally liable, the Commission directed them to:
Refund ₹61,999, the full amount paid for the iPhone;
Pay interest at 6% per annum on the refunded amount;
Pay ₹10,000 as compensation for mental harassment; and
Pay ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.
The Commission observed that the inconvenience and distress caused to the complainant due to the non-delivery of a high-value product justified the award of compensation.
In conclusion, the Jodhpur District Consumer Commission held that both e-commerce platforms and brand companies cannot disclaim responsibility in cases of deficient service and unfair trade practices, especially when they exercise control over the transaction process. The complaint was accordingly allowed, with the Commission directing a refund of ₹61,999 along with compensation and costs to the complainant.
Appearance
For the Complainant: Mr. Jogendra Bhati, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Kamlesh Fofaliya, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1, Mr. Hemant Solanki, Advocate for Opposite Party No. 2, Opposite Party No. 3 [Ex parte]
Cause Title: Jyoti Bhati v Amazon India & Ors.
Case No: CC 289/2022
Coram: Dr. Yatish Kumar Sharma [President (Chairperson)], Dr. Anuradha Vyas [Member]
