Selling A Book Above MRP, Hyderabad Commission Holds Amazon And Its Seller Liable

Brief Facts:

Kethavath Naresh (“Complainant”) brought a book titled "A History of Ancient and Medieval India" from Saraswathi Book House (“Seller”) on Amazon. Despite paying an amount of Rs. 1,517, upon receiving the book, the Complainant observed that the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) was significantly lower at Rs. 845. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad (“District Commission”).

The Complainant accused the Seller and Amazon of deficiency in service. He further contended that Amazon, as an online marketplace, failed in its responsibility to ensure that sellers on its platform adhere to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, of 2019. He asserted that Amazon, being an intermediary, overlooked the genuineness and compliance of third-party sellers.

In response, Amazon argued that it operates as an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, with its primary function being the facilitation of online transactions between buyers and third-party sellers. Amazon argued that it is not directly involved in the pricing, specification listing, or discounting of products, asserting that such responsibilities lie solely with the independent sellers on its platform. The seller didn’t appear before the District Commission and, therefore, was proceeded against ex-parte.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission noted subsequent discovery of a lower Maximum Retail Price (MRP) raises valid concerns about unfair trade practices and a deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. Further, the District Commission noted that Amazon's intermediary status is insufficient to absolve it of responsibility. It referred to Section 2(17) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, defining an electronic service provider, and the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020, specifically Section 4(11), which prohibits e-commerce entities from manipulating prices for unjustified profit. The District Commission held that Amazon, being an integral part of the transaction process, could not evade liability for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practices evident in the case.

Emphasizing the duty of sellers on an e-commerce platform to refrain from adopting unfair trade practices, the District Commission concluded that both Amazon and the Seller were liable for their role in the transaction. It directed Amazon and the Seller jointly and severally to refund an amount of Rs. 672/–, the excess amount collected over the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) for the book. Additionally, the District Commission ordered the payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs and compensation suffered by the Complainant.

Case Title: Kethavath Naresh vs Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and Anr.

Case No.: Consumer Case No.38 OF 2023

Advocate for the Complainant: Party-in-person

Advocate for the Respondent: Rajan Sri Krishnan (for Amazon)

Click Here To Read/Download Order