DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 118/2022

Date of Institution: 04.03.2022

Judgment Reserved on: 16.04.2024

Judgment Passed on: 16.04.2024

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member) On Leave

Judgment By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

1. By this judgment Commission shall dispose off the complaint of the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs for not supplying her goods despite having made the payment.
2. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that on 19.05.2021 she placed an order vide ID No. 0D12182050651298300 to the OP for booking the Samsung Galaxy F12 (Sea Green 128GB) through seller ‘True Com Retail’ and amount of Rs.10,999/- has been deposited from the account of the complainant on 18.05.2021 and same has been credited in the account of the OP1 but complainant has not received the mobile against the placed order and even the amount received by the complainant has not been returned. The complainant contacted her SBI Branch, Jheel Chowk, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi to enquire about her refund of this amount but the amount has never been credited to her account. She wrote various letters/emails to the OP1 and also issued legal notice dated 26.02.2021 but till now the complainant neither received her given amount nor the ordered mobile and from the above mentioned facts it is clear that conduct of the OP is malafide, to harass the complainant & to put her in physical and financial loss which amounts to deficiency in service and as such she has filed the present complaint case against the OP claiming Rs.10,999/- alongwith compensation of Rs.2 Lakh, litigation charges of Rs.21,000/- with interest.   
3. The OP1 & OP2 have filed joint reply claiming themselves to be the mere online market place (e-commerce) entity, and is a platform /electronic market which acts only as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third party sellers and independent customers and the purchaser and seller are separate entities being controlled and managed by different persons/stakeholders and consumer protection rules has clearly distinguished marketplace e-commerce platform from the seller of the goods and as such he cannot be held liable in this entire transaction. It is further submitted that complainant had placed an order for the product issued from independent seller on the flipkart platform and the whole grievance pertains to the refund against the ordered product as the complainant’s order was not confirmed while price of the product was debited from her account. It is further submitted that answering OP had taken up the said issue with the seller who informed that since the payment was not received from the complainant, the order of the complainant could not be confirmed and in the given scenario the OP had advised the complainant to approach his bank for the alleged debit of the price amount, as it is only the concerned branch of the bank who could have confirmed the payment to the seller’s account and even otherwise without admitting the same, OP1 cannot be held liable w.r.t. any such transaction w.r.t. payment made by the as, and the alleged dispute solely is in between the complainant/purchaser and the seller, without any involvement of the OP. It is further reiterated that OP1 is similar to a shopping mall where various shops are rented out to different sellers who independently carrying out their sale purchase transactions with independent visitors who visit the shopping mall without involvement of the shopping mall & therefore complaint of the complainant be dismissed.
4. As far as merits are concerned the facts mentioned in the preliminary objections are reiterated and it is submitted that as per the information provided by the seller the order was not confirmed by the seller at the first instance due to ‘failure payment’ of the complainant and in view of the same it may be said that complainant concocted false story with malafide motives for illegal enriching herself and ultimately it is prayed that complaint of the complainant be dismissed.      
5. Complainant has not filed rejoinder and has filed her own evidence and OPs have filed evidence of Ms. Sanchi Chhabra, AR of OP1 & OP2. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. The complainant alongwith complaint has filed receipt of money paid on date 18.05.2021 to Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. which is being reflected from her bank statement of SBI against UPI Ref. ID No. 113820697565 to the seller ‘True Com Retail’ who informed the OP that the payment was not confirmed. The complainant then has filed one letter, on record purportedly issued by the OP thereby suggesting her, that she should contact the SBI & raised request against the merchant account for clear resolution. The complainant then has filed her statement of account where, against this very UPI Ref. ID No. 113820697565, the amount has been debited from her account into the account of the OP & not in the account of ‘True Com Retail’. The letter placed on record by complainant specifically mentions that payment for this purchase of mobile has been made to Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. i.e. OP1 having UPI Ref. ID No. 113820697565. The OPs in their entire reply have submitted that they are mere platform but in the entire written argument they have not at all mentioned a single word that this UPI Ref. ID No. 113820697565 does not pertain to them. May be the order has been placed to ‘True Com Retail’ seller but it has been placed through the OP in whose account the amount of Rs. 10,999/- has been credited. The OPs have failed to inform as to how they are intermediary as they had received the amount from the purchaser, and then they have to place the order after retaining their commission for services to the actual seller. This has not been done by the OP. Apart from the theoretical self proclaimed appreciation w.r.t. the working profile of the OPs, no fact as to how they are only a electronic platform is explained. The basic reply has not been given by OP to the effect that ID given in receipt of the complainant does not pertain to them. This ID apparently pertains to the OP & has been confirmed by the bank statement of the complainant & it is clear that amount has been paid against this ID to OPs only and from the document it has been clarified that this ID is of OP and in absence of any denial, the role of the OPs does not remain to be of a mere intermediary. Once the payment has been made to the OP1 & the receipt from OP’s platform has been issued in favour of the complainant, than OP has to transfer the amount to be proposed seller, who would send/sale the product to the complainant within the information of OP. Therefore the Commission is of the opinion that what exactly the OP is claiming has not been proved & mere denial that this payment has not been credited in their account has not been proved by OPs at all, and therefore OPs are held liable/responsible for the deficiency in service and the Commission hereby orders as follows;

• OPs would pay Rs.10,999/- to the complainant from the date of deposit of the amount till actual realization alongwith the interest @12% with compensation amount of Rs.7500/-.
• OP would pay Rs.2,500/- towards litigation charges to the complainant.  
• This Order is to be complied with within 30 days from the receiving the order & in case the OPs would not pay the amount within 30 days the rate of interest would be @15% from the date of deposit upto the date of realization on the entire amount.
  3. opy of the Order be supplied/sent to the Parties free of cost as per rules.

Announced on 16.04.2024.

File be consigned to Record Room.