The Ernakulam Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed an e-commerce site to pay a compensation of ₹10,000 to a consumer for not delivering the article he ordered and also refusing to refund its price.
ADVERTISEMENT
Awarding the compensation, the Commission, led by its president D.B. Binu, observed that according to Section 6(1) of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, sellers on marketplace e-commerce platforms are prohibited from adopting unfair trade practices. Sellers have a responsibility to provide goods and services of acceptable quality and ensure delivery. Failure to fulfil these obligations may result in liability for damages or loss.
The Commission also ordered the portal to refund ₹5,517 paid by the customer and ₹5,000 towards litigation cost.
ADVERTISEMENT
The order came on a complaint filed by Harigovind of Palluruthy. According to him, he had placed an order from JJ Pet Zone, an online pet food and accessories distributor based in Chennai for a dry food on December 22, 2021, for his puppy. He was assured of free delivery within two days. However, the site failed to deliver the food.
He accused the online portal of engaging in unfair trade practices by failing to deliver the food and refusing to refund the price he had paid. There had been no response from the online shop despite mailing about the non-delivery. The complainant said he had suffered a financial loss, mental agony, and had to buy alternative food for their puppy. And he sought refund of the price and a compensation.
The e-commerce site contended that that the courier service faced difficulties due to Christmas holidays and Covid-19 restrictions. It alleged that the complainant provided an incomplete address preventing the delivery agent from reaching them. They maintained that the delay and non-delivery were beyond their control, asserting that they cannot be held liable.
The opposite party (the online distributor) has failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for their actions and has not demonstrated a valid defence against the complainant’s claims. The terms and conditions provided by the seller are inconsistent with the law and consumer rights. The concept of ‘Caveat Venditor’ (let the seller beware) holds the seller responsible for the goods they sell. The opposite party’s attempt to shift blame onto the courier service is inconsistent with the legal obligations imposed on sellers, the Commission observed.