Sri Partha Kumar Basu, Hon’ble Member :
The case of the complainant as averred in his notarised complaint petition dated 24.03.2022 against the OP-1, an online e-commerce company operating in a marketplace and the OP-2, a finance company is apparently for deficiency in services. In absence of any mention, the case was admitted u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The complainant stated about buying 3 products from the OP-1 e-commerce company vide order ID-OD 222909820941917000 for an amount of Rs.2659/- and Rs.2354/- totalling into Rs.5,013/- including EMI interest. As per the complaint, the OP-1 Company’s claim was found in excess by Rs.1499/-. The complainant availed pay-later option on EMI basis from the OP-2 Bank. Due to the alleged undue claim by the OPs, the complainant filed this complaint for refund of his money for Rs.1,062/- along with a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
Written Version is filed by the OP-1 e-commerce company where the allegations were denied giving some preliminary objections like that the OP-1 company being an intermediary, shall not be liable for any 3rd party information hosted in their portal. The OP-1 also contended that all the transactions in their website are on principal to principal basis between the buyer and seller, wherein the OP1 is not a party to such transactions by OP-2 Bank. The OP1 is not in banking or financial service and is merely a facilitator providing on-line platform for marketing of 3rd party products Since the OP-1 is not involved in the transaction process between the buyer and the seller therefore, any deficiency in service alleged by the complainant is denied.
The OP-2 remained absent without filing W/V and as such the case has been running ex-parte as per order no: 6 dated 24.08.2022 against OP 2. The case was heard when Ld. Advocate of the OP-1 filed their BNA and advanced arguments. The complainant was absent without steps on the date of final hearing on 18.12.2023. The complainant filed documents as per annexure no. 1 to 5 in support of his claims. No document was exhibited by OPs.
Heard the arguments of ld. Advocate of OP1 and perused the records and exhibited documents. The Consumer Protection Act 2019 has widened the scope of the definition of "consumer" to include persons who buy or avail of goods or services online or through electronic means. This was earlier not present in the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Going through the merit in the case in hand, from the records and exhibits, it appears that complainant purchased a travel neck pillow for Rs. 424/- as per tax invoice dated 24.09.2021 from “Missru Trading Company”, a Bristle Beard Brush vide invoice dated 21.09.2021 for Rs.240/- from “Lohia Retails” and a Cabin luggage for Rs.3159/- from “Winsper Creations Private Ltd.” For Rs.3169/- through Flipkart e-commerce portal. The UPI transactions for Rs.2669/- dated 05.10.2022 is also on record as per exhibit of complainant. It is observed that though the OPs are service providers under the scopes and meaning of Consumer Protection Act’ 2019 but the complainant cum consumer has not clearly mentioned his contention to establish the basis of refund of Rs.1062/- that he is claiming for. As per complaint petition, there are 2 loan accounts opened by the complainant with OP 2 finance company. The complaint is not specified. Not only the basic ingredients of the claim but also the reconciled statement or any information is absent in the 4 corners of the complaint petition or the annexures filed by the complainant.
Hence the complainant has failed to make out a case prima facie.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the case has not merit and thus dismissed of on contest against the O.P. No. 1 and ex-parte against the O.P. No. 2.
There shall be no order as to cost.
Let a copy of the order be supplied free of cost to the parties concerned.
That the final order will be available in the following website www.confonet.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member
