The question this answers is not whether the goods were defective. That is dealt with in the answer on defective online purchases. This is about parties: whom you put in the cause title, and how liability gets allocated between them.
Joining a platform must rest on a pleaded legal basis, such as its own deficient service, breach of the E-Commerce Rules or applicable product-seller liability. Convenience of service alone does not establish liability. Product liability also requires harm within Section 2(22), not merely a defect in the product itself.
Three reasons the platform belongs in the complaint
The first is evidentiary and practical. You often do not know who the seller is beyond a trading name, and you certainly do not have an address at which a notice will be served. The second is that the platform may be liable on its own conduct, quite apart from anything the seller did. The third is enforcement, because an order against a seller who cannot be found is worth very little.
| What happened | Who carries it | The provision |
|---|---|---|
| The goods were defective or not as described | The seller in the first instance | Section 2(10) on defect and Section 2(47) on unfair trade practice |
| The manufacturer cannot be identified or served, or the other conditions of Section 86(d) apply | The product seller, which can include the platform where it fits Section 2(37) | Section 86(d), which fastens liability on a product seller where the manufacturer's identity is not known or process cannot be served on him |
| The platform made its own promise about delivery, authenticity, quality assurance or a return window | The platform, on its own representation | Section 2(11) on deficiency and Rule 4(3) of the 2020 Rules, which bars an e-commerce entity from adopting an unfair trade practice |
| The platform sold from its own inventory or vouched for authenticity | The platform directly | Rule 7(5) of the 2020 Rules, under which an inventory entity that vouches for authenticity bears appropriate liability |
| The grievance was ignored | Whichever of them ignored it, and often both | Rules 4(5) and 6(4)(b), which require a grievance officer to acknowledge within forty eight hours and redress within one month |
How to find out who the seller actually is
Send that request first, in writing, and keep the reply. It gives you the seller's correct legal name and a serviceable address, which is the difference between a complaint that proceeds and one that sits waiting for service for a year. If the platform does not answer it, that refusal is itself a breach of the Rules and belongs in the complaint, because Rule 8 provides that the provisions of the Act apply to any violation of the Rules.
The safe harbour argument
The platform will say it is only an intermediary and cannot be liable for what a third party sold. Rule 5(1) of the 2020 Rules addresses this squarely: a marketplace entity which seeks to avail the exemption from liability under Section 79(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 shall comply with sub sections (2) and (3) of that section. The exemption is conditional, and the conditions are things you can test on the facts of your own transaction.
There is a further limit that gets forgotten. Safe harbour is about content that a third party put on the platform. It is not a shield for the platform's own promises. The delivery date the platform guaranteed, the quality badge it applied, the assured programme it charged for, the refund policy it published in its own name and the payment gateway that held your money are all the platform's own conduct. Plead those separately and specifically, rather than making a general assertion that the platform is liable for everything, because a general assertion is what allows the intermediary answer to work.
Getting the cause title right
- The registered legal name of the platform company, not the brand on the app, taken from the public record against its CIN
- The seller's legal name and address as furnished under the Rule 5(3)(a) proviso, with the request and reply annexed
- The order confirmation, the invoice and the tax invoice, which often name different entities and need to be read together
- The platform's own published promise, screenshotted with the date, if you rely on it
- Every complaint ticket number with its date, so that the forty eight hour and one month obligations can be measured
- Payment proof showing which entity actually received the money
Jurisdiction with more than one opposite party
Read Section 34(2) carefully here, because it treats several opposite parties differently. Clause (b) lets you file where any one of several opposite parties carries on business, but only with the commission's permission. Clause (d) lets you file where you reside or personally work for gain, and needs nobody's permission at all. So plead your own residence as the primary ground and the others in the alternative. The answer on territorial jurisdiction sets out how the four grounds interact.
The mistake I see most often is a complaint filed against a brand name rather than a company. A cause title naming a shopping app the way a customer thinks of it, with no registered office, produces a notice that is never served and months of adjournments. Ten minutes on the public record before you draft avoids all of it.