Liability of Online Marketplaces Frauds and Unfair Practices by Sellers

The recent ruling against Amazon India versus Supriyo Ranjan Mahapatra case, a lawyer from Odisha, has been seen as a cult that paves a new ray of hope for end customers. The Odisha State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission verdicts the ruling in favor of Mahapatra, putting a penalty of Rs 45,000 as compensation for unfair trade practices and failing to adhere to the customer service.

In 2014, Mahapatra, then a first-year law student at the Tamil Nadu Law University, placed an order to buy a laptop at Rs 190 without a bag. The same got confirmed, and however, he received a call from customer service, informing him of the cancellation of the order stating the price recession issue. Resisting such a lucrative offer, Mahapatra tried his best to contact customer care through phone calls and emails, he didn't receive any satisfactory answer. In the end, he placed an order for a new laptop.

Devastated and suffered a money loss, he sent a legal notice against Amazon, claiming adequate compensation for product and litigation charges. A series of arguments progressed that out on rest recently by the court, directing Amazon India to pay duly for the loss.

Similar Cases Against Amazon

The shopping giant Amazon had experienced such lawsuits for failing customer service in the past too. In one such instance, the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled in favor of Amazon when the complainant reached its door asking for a fair trial against his shopping experience. 

The complainant, who has shopped a mobile phone from Amazon, needs to go to the authorized service center for his, asking to pay Rs. 5,200 to replace the faulty parts. Upon knowing this, he asked his phone back and later realized that a few parts were stolen. Consequently, he filed a lawsuit against Amazon and the authorized service center. After a careful examination and investigation, the commission ruled the decision in Amazon's favor stating the clause of "Condition to Use" and absence of no privity of contract between the company and the buyer. Therefore, the shopping giant came out clean in this matter.

A Way Forward

The recent ruling by the State Commission opened new doors and insights for customers who suffer at the hands of online players. It highlights a potential question on holding accountability for the online marketplace. Furthermore, it emphasizes explicit provisions on limited liability on online players; the ruling is seen as the weapon to fight off against unfair, deceitful, and cheating practices.

In its ruling, the State Commission clarified that the verdict would be different if the order didn't get confirmed. Also, the court questions the third-party seller's rights to be operated on its platform and ways to handle responsibility in such events.

Reaction from Customers 

The customers applaud the decision; it is not the absolute weapon to safeguard customers' interests as different State Commissions have issued conflicting orders.

Bottom Line

Accept it, with the sprawling ongoing pandemic, more and more people are using online means to satisfy their needs. Even the expanding and evolving eCommerce marketplace offers lucrative unlimited offers for customers to consider this medium above all. Therefore, there is a prerequisite for the land law to put a boundary to protect customers' rights. A definite law structure also helps in the fast-track resolving of disputes between the parties.