Amazon dragged to NCDRC over allegedly ‘false and misleading’Easy Return Policy

A Complaint has been filed in the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against E-commerce website Amazon, over its allegedly false and misleading policy pertaining to return of goods purchased by consumers..The complaint has been filed by one Paras Jain, in a Representative Capacity as Complainant, on behalf of numerous Consumers, defined under Section 2(1)(b)(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act..The complaint has its basis in Amazon’s ‘Easy Return Policy’, which the company widely publicises on print, social and electronic media. According to the said policy, a Consumer may easily return the goods and claim refund if he/she does not like the goods for any reason whatsoever..Jain had purchased a mobile phone through Amazon but sought to return the same as per Easy Return Policy after the phone started heating up. He was then informed that Amazon had changed its Easy return Policy regarding mobile phones and phones purchased after February 7, 2016. As per the revised policy, mobile phones will have only a replacement policy and not a refund policy..Subsequently, Jain did a fact check on the official Facebook Page of Amazon and came to know that there were other consumers who were aggrieved by the Easy Return Policy of Amazon..This prompted him to move the NCDRC in a representative capacity..In his petition, Jain has contended that he was not informed of the change in policy of refund and the same violates the Consumer’s ‘Right to be Informed’..“Complainant has not been disclosed any information, about Change in Policy of Refund, by the Opposite Party. Even in the Invoice Bill of this Product, the option of returning this item was given to the Complainant. Further after purchase of this Mobile from the Opposite Party, the option of return and exchange is still visible in the Order List of the Complainant. This has violated the basic Right of Consumers of Right to be Informed about the Goods, which forms an opinion in the mind of Consumers whether to purchase the goods or not.”.Jain has also placed reliance on a decision of the Advertisement Standard Council of India (ASCI), an authority which is responsible for regulation of Advertisements. The Consumer Complaints Council of the ASCI had, in March, 2016, found the Policy of Easy Return misleading and had observed the following in its decision:.“The advertiser’s website communication provides the term and conditions applicable for the claim “Easy Returns”. However, the TVC does not have any reference to terms and conditions. The claim “Easy Returns” was therefore misleading by omission of an appropriate disclaimer in the TVC.”.Based on the above, Jain has submitted that Amazon adopted Unfair Trade Practice in following manner:.“By making false promise and running misleading campaign of about Policy of Easy Return in all its Advertisements andBy withholding the information from the Complainant of change in its Policy of Easy Return.”.He has, therefore sought for a direction to be issued to Amazon to refund Rs. 9119, the amount spent by him for purchasing the mobile phone. He has also sought for imposition of punitive damages on Amazon to the extent of Rs. 743 crore, which is the amount spent by Amazon for advertising their Easy Return Policy..Interestingly, the hearing in the case before NCDRC has thrown up another significant aspect – the legal powers of the Advertising Standards Council of India and its jurisdiction to investigate issues. The ASCI is a voluntary and self-regulatory organisation which was established in the year 1985 and registered as a Not-For-Profit Organisation under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956..The NCDRC has sought information from the complainant regarding the statutory provisions under which ASCI derives jurisdiction to investigate issues. The complainant is expected to respond to this query on May 8 when the matter is next listed for hearing..The complainant, Paras Jain, has fought successful consumer battles in the past. He had sued Emami for its false advertisements about its fairness cream..He was also instrumental in ensuring that CBSE provides answer sheet copies at the rate prescribed by the RTI Rules, as opposed to the “exorbitant fees” which it was charging..Image taken from here.