Warranty, forum, and the online marketplace: a consumer complaint
In March 2024, Rhea, a final-year student living in Dwarka, bought a laptop for ₹68,000 from an online marketplace. The listing was by a third-party seller, TechNova Retail; the marketplace collected payment and displayed TechNova's GSTIN and address. After four months, the laptop began shutting down randomly. Rhea updated the BIOS and drivers herself, as instructed by the seller's chat support. A local service centre then found a swollen battery and quoted ₹9,500 for replacement. TechNova refused repair, saying the warranty is void because Rhea 'opened the system'-though she had only run software updates. The marketplace says it is merely an intermediary and points to its seller-disclosure page. Rhea wants a replacement and compensation for 12 days without a working laptop during her exams. She files a complaint before the District Consumer Commission in Dwarka. TechNova argues that the commission lacks territorial jurisdiction because the sale was processed on a server in Bengaluru and the seller's office is elsewhere.
1. Which consumer commission has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction over Rhea's complaint? Explain your reasoning.
Read the worked answer
Pecuniary jurisdiction: the District Commission hears consumer claims up to ₹50 lakh after the 2021 jurisdiction rules (the 2019 Act originally set ₹1 crore). ₹68,000 is well within that limit, so the District Commission is the correct tier. Territorial jurisdiction: Section 34(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 permits a complaint where the complainant resides or works, where the opposite party has an office or branch, or where the cause of action arose. Rhea resides and works in Dwarka; delivery, use, and the refusal to repair occurred there. The fact that the sale was processed on a Bengaluru server does not by itself create exclusive jurisdiction in Bengaluru-e-commerce does not have a special rule that only the server location counts. TechNova's argument is therefore too narrow. A practical caveat is that if TechNova has no office in Dwarka, service of notice may need to be by email and registered post, but that does not defeat jurisdiction. Conclusion: the Dwarka District Commission is the proper forum.
2. Is the warranty really void because Rhea updated the BIOS and drivers? Who must prove what?
Read the worked answer
A warranty exclusion is not automatic. The seller must connect Rhea's act to the defect. Updating BIOS and drivers, especially when the seller's own chat support instructed it, is not 'opening the system' or an unauthorised hardware repair. A swollen battery is a hardware or manufacturing issue; the local service centre's finding supports that. Under the 2019 Act, a seller or manufacturer can be liable for a defect, and a condition that extinguishes warranty for routine software updates may be challenged as an unfair contract term. Rhea should preserve the chat transcript, the invoice, and the service centre report. If TechNova alleges tampering, it should prove causation through an inspection report, not a mere assertion. Conclusion: the warranty defence is weak; replacement or repair plus proved consequential loss is arguable. Compensation for the 12 lost days must be supported by evidence, not assumed.
3. Can the marketplace be held liable, or is it only the seller? What should Rhea ask the commission to do?
Read the worked answer
Marketplace liability is not automatic. Under the E-Commerce Rules, 2020, a marketplace must display seller details and follow due diligence. Here it displayed TechNova's GSTIN and address, so Rhea can identify and sue the seller. The marketplace becomes liable if it fails to disclose seller details, fails to take down a prohibited listing after notice, or itself provides false information. Because the marketplace collected payment, Rhea should implead it and ask the commission to order disclosure of the seller's current address and transaction records. If the marketplace cannot produce those records, its intermediary defence weakens. Primary relief should still be sought from TechNova, with the marketplace as a necessary or fallback party. This is a compliance judgement, not a blanket rule that platforms are always liable for sellers' acts.