‘Unfair Trade Practice”: Odisha State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Directs To Pay Rs. 40,000/-For Cancelling Confirmed Order

first_imgNews Updates’Unfair Trade Practice”: Odisha State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Directs To Pay Rs. 40,000/-For Cancelling Confirmed Order LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK26 Jan 2021 8:59 PMShare This – xThe Odisha State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission found Amazon India guilty of ‘unfair trade practice’ for retracting an offer for sale of laptop at Rs. 190/-, after issuing a confirmation receipt. The President of the Commission, Dr. DP Choudhury, thereby directed the company to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation to the Complainant, an aggrieved law student. The…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Odisha State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission found Amazon India guilty of ‘unfair trade practice’ for retracting an offer for sale of laptop at Rs. 190/-, after issuing a confirmation receipt. The President of the Commission, Dr. DP Choudhury, thereby directed the company to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation to the Complainant, an aggrieved law student. The Commission observed, “When there is advertisement made for offer placed the OP who is a reputed Online Shopping Website and made offer as per the materials available on record and the complainant placed the order and same has been confirmed, the agreement is complete between the parties. Had there been cancellation before receipt of conformation, the matter would have been considered otherwise.” The Commission rejected Amazon’s contention that the agreement was with a third party and that it was not privy to the contract between the student and the laptop retailer. It held that when the concerned seller was allowed at the e-commerce website’s platform, the latter’s responsibility cannot be lost sight of. “Before floating an offer, the OP [Amazon] should have considered whether he was able to decide to issue the advertisement and after the contract is completed, it has no business to go away from the promise,” the Commission opined. Background The case dates back to the year 2014, when Supriyo Ranjan Mahapatra, a law student, came across an offer on Amazon India website for a laptop of a certain company for Rs 190 as against the product’s original price of Rs 23,499. Mahapatra placed the order for the same and also received an e-mail confirmation of his order having been successfully placed with an assurance that the product would be delivered soon. Some hours later, he received a phone call from Amazon’s customer care department saying his order stands cancelled due to ‘pricing issues’. Mahapatra said the same was a breach of specific performance of the contract and despite several attempts to contact customer care through their helpline and e-mail, he did not receive any response and was forced to send across a legal notice on January 17, 2015, but in vain. He then moved the District Consumer Forum, which held the company guilty of deficiency in service and allowed the complaint in part by directing it to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/-. Mahapatra then approached the State Commission seeking enhancement of compensation, on grounds of mental agony. He submitted that he urgently needed a laptop to complete a project, and due to Amazon’s unfair trade practice he was forced to buy another laptop. He further urged that punitive damages must be imposed on the company so it does not venture in such unlawful activities in the future. The case was dealt with under the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Order The Commission allowed the appeal and directed Amazon to pay Rs. 30,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to Mahapatra, Rs. 10,000/- towards punitive damages, and Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost of litigation. Additionally, it was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs.Click Here To Download OrderRead OrderSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *