[ad_1]
Challenging the Central Consumer Protection Authority’s recent decision to hold it liable for allowing sale of pressure cookers that did not meet the mandatory standards, the e-commerce giant before the Delhi High Court Tuesday argued that its position in the market was akin to the landlord of a shopping mall.
“Suppose there is a mall, there is a DLF mall, somebody is selling spurious apples, are you going to haul up the landlord,” Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, representing Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, argued before the bench of Justice Yashwant Varma.
Justice Varma listed the case for hearing on September 19 after the counsel representing the CCPA sought time to seek instructions. CCPA last month said 2,265 pressure cookers not conforming to mandatory standards were sold through Amazon and imposed a fine of Rs 1 Lakh on the platform.
CCPA also observed that when Amazon earns commercially from each sale of the product listed on its platform, it can not disassociate itself in case of issues arising from sale of products through its platform. The regulatory authority in the order directed Amazon to notify all consumers of the 2,265 pressure cookers sold on its platform, recall the products and reimburse their prices to the consumers.
Arguing for Amazon, Nayar said the Consumer Protection Act requires that CCPA was first required to give a preliminary finding that there exists a prima facie case of violation of consumer rights, then refer the matter for investigation and after that probe, pass an order.
“In this case it has been completely given a go by, apart from the fact that there is a penalty which is imposed which is not warranted by any provision of the Act. I am not quantum. I am only indicating the entire approach is entirely contradictory,” argued Nayar.
Comparing the e-commerce platform’s position to that of the landlord of a shopping mall, Nayar submitted, “Here we are also renting out space. We are renting out space. We are actually not renting out. We are offering a platform. Please look at our bonafide, as soon as they pointed it out, we asked them [sellers] to discontinue. We put them off our marketplace.”.
However, Justice Varma questioned why the e-commerce does not undertake a preliminary exercise to first see whether the products have the BIS certification or not. “Why is that an impossibility,” asked the court.
Nayar responded that it may be an impossibility but now Amazon has now started this exercise. “Somebody starts selling second hand cars. Where will be get the warranty whether the second hand car was stolen or not stolen,” the counsel representing Amazon asked.
However, the court said the case is about pressure cookers which “obviously had to have a BIS or ISI certification.”. Nayar said, “Suppose the manufacturer puts it online, the stage will be when some consumer complains. I can’t start investigating because I then can never advertise.”
[ad_2]
Source link