STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No.A/21/427 Arising out of order dated 10/12/2020 in Complaint No.104 of 2018 passed by Additional District Commission, Mumbai Suburban)

Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Represented through its authorized signatory, Mr.Rahul Sundaram, Senior Corporate Counsel, Having its registered office at:

Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr.Raj Kumar, Malleshwaran (W), Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 055, India. ……… Appellant Versus

1. Surendra Anil, Resident of:

204, Heena Plaza CHS Ltd., Opp.Adarsh School, Rajaji Path, Dombivali (East), Thane – 421 201.

2. UBS Publishers & amp, #39, Distributors Pvt. Ltd., 5, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002. ……..Respondents BEFORE:

Mukesh V. Sharma – Presiding Member Poonam V. Maharshi - Member For the Appellant(s) : Advocate Aamir Sopariwala a/w Advocate Jehan Fulwaliwala and Advocate Santosh Sawant i/b Saikrishna & Associates For the Respondent(s) : Respondent no.1 in person.

ORDER

(09/08/2024)

Per Mr.Mukesh V. Sharma – Presiding Member:

1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant, Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., through it’s representative challenging the order dated 10/12/2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban, in Consumer Complaint No. 104/2018. The District Commission found Appellant and Respondent no. 2 guilty of engaging in unfair trade practices by advertising a book at an inflated price, falsely indicating a significant discount, and continuing this practice despite being notified by the present Respondent No. 1 who was the Original Complainant.

2. Factual Background of the case is that the Original Complainant, Mr.

Surendra Anil Pawar, purchased a book titled "Legal Drafting - Do It Yourself" from Amazon's platform. The book was advertised with a 69% discount on its Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of Rs. 1,595/-, leading to a sale price of Rs. 502/-. Upon receiving the book, the Original Complainant discovered that the MRP printed on the book was only Rs. 525/-, revealing a clear misrepresentation by the Respondent no. 2 and present Appellant.

3. The Respondent No. 1 / Org. Complainant promptly notified Amazon on October 22, 2016, yet the misleading advertisement remained on Amazon's platform until November 17, 2017 over a year later. This blatant disregard for consumer rights prompted the Respondent No. 1 / Org.

Complainant to file a complaint.

4. The District Commission heard the complaint and partly allowed it, declaring that the Appellant and Respondent No. 2, engaged in unfair trade practices. The Commission ordered both parties, jointly and severally, to pay Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation costs to the complainant, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum until the full amount is paid. Being aggrieved by this order present appeal has been preferred.

5. Appellant claimed their role is limited to providing a marketplace, and any pricing discrepancies are the responsibility of the sellers (here respondent no. 2), and not Appellant.

6. The Appellant also contended that the compensation awarded was excessive and unjustified, and that the District Commission’s order was erroneous, warranting the appeal to set aside the adverse findings and liabilities imposed on them.

7. Appellant has referred and relied upon Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to argue that it is merely an intermediary and therefore not liable for the actions of third-party sellers on its platform. Additionally, the Appellant cited the judgment in Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., specifically referring to paragraphs 146 and 147 of the judgment in support of its position.

8. We have heard both parties at length and carefully considered their submissions. The Appellant has heavily relied on Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, which is reproduced as follows :

“79. Exemption from liability of intermediary in certain cases.--(1) Notwi