PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                                                            CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 139/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Mr. Jitendra Kumar

C/O- Abhiram Mekap

At-Balaji Colony, Lane -3, Khetrajpur, Sambalpur

Dist-Sambalpur-768005.

Mob-977737995                                                  …….…......Complainant.

                                    -Vrs.-

1. Flipkart India Private Limited

Regd. Office At Vaishnavi Summit, No.6/B,

7^th main, 80 feet Road, 3^rd Block,Koramangala, Bangalore-560034,India.

2. Flipkart Advanze Private Limited

Regd Office at-Building Alyassa Begonia and Clover,

Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road,

Devarabeesanahalli Village, Banglore KA560103 IN

3. IDFC First Bank Ltd.

Regd Office at-Naman Chambers C-32 G-Block

Bandra-Kurla Complex, Banmdra East, Mumbai-400051,India

4. Credit Information Bereau(India) Limited

One World Centre Tower,2A 19^th Floor Senapati Bapat Marg, Fitwala Road Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin-400013.                                ……........Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- A.Ghussi & Associates
2. For the O.P. No.1            & 2        :-Sri. A.K. Sahoo & Associates
3. For the O.P. No.3                           :-Ex-parte
4. For the O.P. No.4                           :- Sri. B. Panigrahi & Associates

Date of Filing:11.09.2023,Date of Hearing :30.01.2024,Date of Judgement :27.02.2024

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The Complainant filed this case alleging deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment. Basing on the transactions of the Complainant and performance the O.P. No.1 through its finance company O.P. No.2 offered a BNPL Advance payment(Pay Later) for Rs. 50,000/-. The O.P. No.1 & 2 in collaboration with O.P.No.3 Bank provided credit facility to purchase goods online by using pay later facility and payment was made by O.P. No.3 through O.P. No.1 & 2 in advance. The Consumer then pay the monthly bills like credit cards. The Complainant lastly purchased goods on 07.11.2022 and thereafter no purchase has been made. The Complainant in the mean time joined Indian Railways. On 21.04.2023 the Complainant came to know that an order has been placed from his account and an Apple-I phone-II white 28 GB and charger has been ordered from his account. The Complainant immediately tried to log-in his account but the account has been blocked by the O.Ps intentionally so that he will not be able to cancel the said order. Immediately the customer care was contacted of the O.Ps but after receiving the phone also not cancelled the alleged fake order and advised to register a complain online to resolve the matter.

The Complainant reported the matter in cyber police station but they told profile has been hacked by the O.Ps staffs by use of deceptive techniques. The police advised to call the customer care of the O.Ps and to cancel the said order. After information also order was not cancelled by O.P.No.1 & 2 which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

The O.P. No.1 & 3 did not taken any step. An online complaint I.D. No. IN23042112191647580748 dated 21.04.2023 was made, they promise to cancel the online order but told that due to technical error they are unable to do the same.

Recently the Complainant received one demand notice regarding non-payment of the amount although complaint has not resolved. Being aggrieved complaint has been filed.

2. The O.P. No.1 in reply submitted that O.P. no.1 and O.P. No.2 are separate Body entities. The O.P. No.1 is whole seller and engaged in B2B sales. The Complainant has not paid any consideration and not a consumer of answering O.P. The Complainant has purchased the product from online seller. The O.P. No.1 is not a manufacturer nor provides any platform to end-customers for making purchases. The complaint suffers from mis-joinder of parties. The O.P. No.1 never provided any credit facility to the Complainant. The Complainant has availed credit facility through web portal WWW.Flipkart.Com which is owned and operated by separate legal entity and not O.P. No.1 and the seller of the product is an independent third party seller and not the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 has never received and legal notice from the Complainant. The complaint is not maintainable against O.P. No.1
3. The O.P. No.2 in reply submitted that knowing or unknowingly unauthorised access has been granted by Complainant. The O.P. No.2 has not any mechanism to ascertain or conform whether any user accessing the Flipkart account genuine owner or not. The O.P. No.2 is not responsible for the unauthorised transaction, if any or misuse of the Complainant security. To take undue advantage complaint has been filed and only cyber cell department of police has authority to deal the matter O.P. No.2 has no control over the maintenance and security safeguards employed at the online web portal of flipkart.com.

Eligible customers are offered a credit limit based on their credit worthiness and repayment history, which they can use to make purchases on online platform of the independent third party flipkart internet Pvt. Ltd. Once the purchase is made using Flipkart Advanz facility, later the customer has a specified period of time to make the payment.

O.P. No.2 does not own or operate the online platform of flipkart. It is run by flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. The O.P. No.2 does not have any role in the entire transaction. The complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

4. The O.P. No.3 has been set ex-parte.
5. The O.P. No.4 in its reply submitted that the case is not maintainable against the answering O.P. as its duty is to creating, storing, retrieving, compiling collating, collecting, processing and maintaining data of Banks for credit information of individuals and entities. Two loan accounts bearing No. 65606184 and FlIPKART-111765438 are reported by O.P. No.3 (Disputed accounts). Grievance has been communicated to O.P. no.3 to confirm the status of credit information. The response from O.P. No.3 is awaited. The Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant. The O.P. No.1 categorically submitted that the O.P. No.1 never provided any credit facility to the Complainant. The Complainant availed credit facilities through Web portal WWW. Flipkart. Com which is owned and operated by separate legal entity. The O.P. No.2 does not own or separate legal entity. The O.P. No.2 submitted that O.P. No.2 does not own or operate the online platform of flipkart. It is run by Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. Alternative payment facilities Options are provided to customers for financial assistance. The O.P. No.2 alleged that the Complainant has disclosed his security details. In the other hand the O.P.  NO.2 submitted that the O.P. No.2 can not be held liable for any mistakes or omissions made by the Bank. The O.P. No.2 further submitted that O.P. No.2 has no control over the maintenance and security safeguards employed at the online web portal of flipkart. Com. The O.P. No.2 does not have any mechanism to know if the user of any payment method, using the security credentials attached to that method or channel,  is the actual owner of that account or not.  From the above statement it is clear that there is security lapses on the part of O.P. No.2 and the O.P. No.3 Bank. The Complainant has lodged online complaint I.D. No. IN23042112191647480748 dated 21.04.2023 and complaint about the un-authorised order and requested to cancel the said order but no any step was taken and allowed the un-authorised person to commit fraud. As per Reserve Bank of India guideline the O.P. No.2 & 3 failed to prevent the unauthorised use of account of the Complainant and for security lapse the O.P. No.2 & 3 are jointly and severally liable. Further more as per direction of O.P. no.3 the O.P. no.4 has shown the amount and report and O.P. No.4 has no any liability.

The legal demand notice dated 22.08.2023 issued against the Complainant is not proper as complaint has been given and the O.P. No.2 & 3 have till date not settled the dispute. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is established and accordingly it is ordered:

ORDER

The Complaint is allowed against the O.P. No.2 & 3 and dismissed against O.P. No.1 & 4. For deficiency in service the O.P. no.2 & 3 are to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- each with in one month of this order. In case of non-payment the amount will carry 12% interest P.A. from date of filing till realisation. The O.P. No.2 & 3 are further directed not to reflect the amount of Rs. 34596/- in the CIBIL report till settlement is made. Further the O.P. no.2 & 3 are to pay legal expenses of Rs. 5000/- each to the Complainant.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27^th day of Feb., 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.