Amazon, Apple Held Liable For Deficiency In Service: District Consumer Commission Directs Refund Of ₹61,999 To Consumer

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur , has directed Amazon India, Apple India, and the seller to jointly refund ₹61,999 to a consumer for a defective iPhone, holding them liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

The Commission, comprising Dr. Yatish Kumar Sharma, President, and Dr. Anuradha Vyas, Member, imposed a joint liability of Rs. 10,000 on Amazon, Apple, and the third-party private seller towards the complainant, for causing her mental harassment, when she was delivered a power bank worth Rs. 1,000 instead of her pre-paid order of an iPhone 12 amounting to Rs. 61,900

The commission held that when the seller platform actively managed the transaction and controlled the delivery process, it ceased to be a mere intermediary and became a service provider and facilitator.

It was opined that Amazon was a service provider under Section 2(17) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and was obliged to provide quality service to consumers. And sending a Rs. 1000 power bank as opposed to such high value order was a serious deficiency and unfair trade practice.

The complainant had placed an order for the iPhone on Amazon, with an independent third-party seller, by making a UPI payment of Rs. 61,900/-. When the order was received and opened, it contained a power bank of EVM company. Hence, the complaint was filed against Amazon, Apple and the third-party seller for unfair trade practices and deficiency in service.

It was argued on behalf of Amazon that it operated merely as an intermediary who neither manufactured the product nor did it sell it. It only facilitated independent third-party sellers to list their products on the e-commerce marketplace and did not charge the complainant for placing orders on its marketplace.

After hearing the contentions, the Commission highlighted that based on all the available records, it was clear that the product was listed on Amazon, and even the payment was facilitated by the platform.

Reference was made to the case of Amazon Seller Services Private Limited v Prabhat Sinha (2022) in which the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had observed that the e-commerce platforms could not escape the consumer by claiming to be mere intermediaries when they controlled the entire transaction between the seller and the buyer.

Similarly, in the case of Apple India Pvt. Ltd. v Rajesh Sharma (2021), it was held that both the brand company and the platform were liable for any loss suffered by the consumer.

In this light, the Court held that Amazon was a service provider under the Act, and obliged to provide quality services to consumers. It was opined that sending a power bank worth Rs. 1000 as opposed to high value order of Rs. 61,999 was a serious deficiency and unfair trade practice.

Hence, the Commission held that Amazon, Apple and the private seller were jointly liable to repay the full value of the order to the complainant with an interest at the rate of 6%. Moreover, they were ordered to jointly pay compensation of Rs. 10,000, and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000 to her for mental injury and harassment.

Accordingly, the matter was disposed of.

Title: Jyoti Bhati v Amazon India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 336

Click Here To Read/Download Order