Chandigarh: E-com firm fined for cancelling TV order after offering huge discount
Of the total fine, the two parties will pay ₹15,000 as compensation to complainant Vaibhav Sharma, a Chandigarh resident, for causing him mental agony and harassment, and ₹10,000 as cost of litigation
Terming the practice of first luring and then cancelling order as unfair trade practice, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has slapped a fine of ₹50,000 on e-commerce giant Amazon and a retailer.
Of the total fine, the two parties will pay ₹15,000 as compensation to complainant Vaibhav Sharma, a Chandigarh resident, for causing him mental agony and harassment, and ₹10,000 as cost of litigation.
The remaining ₹25,000 has to be deposited in the consumer legal aid account head being maintained by the secretary, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh.
Sharma had approached the commission with a complaint against Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Karnataka, and Amazon seller Happy Cart, Bangalore.
He stated that he placed an order for a TV on Amazon’s website, where it was offered at a discounted price of ₹1,17,999 against the MRP of ₹3,79,990. He paid the full amount, received confirmation and was assigned a delivery date.
However, to his shock, on the date of delivery, he received an e-mail from the website that the order has been cancelled and refund has been initiated. He alleged that the website cancelled the order without any consent, hence, he filed this complaint.
In its reply, Amazon stated that immediately after placing the order, it was cancelled due to some error. Full amount was refunded to the credit card on January 22, 2021, itself. Also, the complainant never approached their customer service team.
The other opposition party (OP) did not turn up, hence they were proceeded against ex parte.
The commission observed: “We feel that offering expensive product at a heavily discounted price without any intention to honour the sale at that price is simply a classic case of false and misleading advertising.”
Terming the practice of luring and then cancelling order as “unfair trade practice”, the commission stated, “Such bait and switch tactics, where consumers are baited with false promises and then switched to an alternative or no deal at all, are deceptive and violate consumers rights. Thus the OPs indulged in false advertisement to lure the customers under false pretexts, thereby harassing the public at large and as such there is clear cut deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice.”
