Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/47/2024

PHONEPE PVT LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

JITENDRA KUMAR RANA - Opp.Party(s)

MADHU P SINGH

31 Jul 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Additional Bench]

==================

Appeal No.	:	A/47/2024
Date  of  Institution	:	19/01/2024
Date   of   Decision	:	31/07/2024

 

 

 

 

 

PhonePe Pvt. Limited, Regd. Office at Salarpuria Softzone, Floor Nos.4, 5, 6, Wing-A of Office 2 in Block-A, Survey Nos. 80/1/, 81/1 and 81/2, Green Glen Layout, Varthur Hobli, Bellandur Village, Bangalore, Karnataka-560025.

….Appellant

Vs.

 

1.     Jitendra Kumar Rana son of Sh. Rishpal Singh, Resident of H.No.330/1, Khudda Ali Sher, Chandigarh-160013.

 

2.     Flipkart Internet Pvt. Limited, through its Directors, Building Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech. Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru-560103.

 

3.     Santosh Kumar Bethala (Additional Director), Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Buildings Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru 560103, Karnataka, India.

 

4.     Prabhu Bala Srinivasan (Director), Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Buildings Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru 560103, Karnataka, India.

 

5.     Binny Bansal, Caching Bansal (Founders), Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Buildings Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru 560103, Karnataka, India.

 

6.     Kalyan Krishnamurthy, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Buildings Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru 560103, Karnataka, India.

…. Respondents

 

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH     MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, Advocate for the Appellant.
		None for Respondent No.1.
		Sh. Atul Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents 2 to 6.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

1.         The present appeal has been filed by PhonePe Private Limited (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “‘the Appellant”’) challenging the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 vide which the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. District Commission”), partly allowed the Consumer Complaint No. 246 of 2020, in the following terms:-

“4.     In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under:-

(i)       to refund the amount of ₹4,999/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment/order i.e. 16.6.2020 onwards.

(ii)      to pay an amount of ₹3,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

(iii)     to pay ₹2,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5.       This order be complied with by the OPs, jointly and severally, within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.

6.       Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.”

 

2.         For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission.

 

3.         Before the Ld. District Commission, it was the case of the Complainant that on 16.06.2020, he purchased an Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max mobile phone through the official application of Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1), as it was offering 96% discount on the device on that day. As per the offer made, complainant had made payment of ₹4,999/- for the subject phone on the online portal/website of OP-1 by availing discount of 96% discount. However, no receipt or order details were generated despite of the fact that, while making the said payment, online portal of PhonePe (OP-5) was also used.  After waiting for some time, when nothing was heard from the OPs, the complainant called customer service centre of OP-1, who assured that either the subject product will be released or refund will be made to him, but to no avail. Eventually, the Complainant served legal notice which was duly replied by OP-1.  The complainant received emails dated 15.07.2020 and 17.07.2020 from the OPs, but, nothing was done. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld.District Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

4.         In the reply filed before the Ld. District Commission, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 pleaded that the transaction ID referred by complainant has no connection with Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) regarding which complainant was also informed and he was advised to contact PhonePe (OP-5) for further assistance. Even OP-1 had no role to play in the entire transaction. Moreover, Flipkart platform is an electronic market place model E-commerce platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate the sale transactions between the independent third party sellers and independent end customer. Not only this, even no payment has been made to Flipkart as per the transaction document produced by the complainant and the answering OP cannot be held responsible for the same. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

5.         Opposite Party No.5 contested the consumer complaint, inter alia, submitting that it being an intermediary as per Information Technology Act, 2020 complied with all the obligations laid down for the intermediaries in the said Act.  It was asserted that, in fact, complainant has come with the plea that he has not received the subject product or refund of the amount of ₹4,999/- by using the App of the Opposite Party No.5 for purchase of the subject product.  In fact, said transaction was done by using the App of the Opposite Party No.5, which was secured by UPI PIN and was successful at the end of Opposite Party No.5.  The Opposite Party No.5 only facilitated payment and services in connection with online transactions and in case any person intended to avail the services of Opposite Party No.5, he is bound to adhere to the terms and conditions of the answering OP.  The consumer complaint was sought to be contested on the aforesaid lines.

 

6.         On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. District Commission partly allowed the Complaint of the Complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.  

 

7.         Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.5.

 

8.         We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care.

 

9.         During the course of present proceedings, Learned Counsel  for the Respondents No.2 to 6 fairly conceded that the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the Ld. District Commission has been fully complied with by Respondents No.2 to 6. In support of his version, he had placed on record copy of the acknowledgement duly singed by Sh. Jitendra Kumar Rana, Complainant (Respondent No.1 herein) about compliance of the impugned order by the Flipkart Internet Private Limited. Relevant excerpt of said acknowledgement is reproduced hereinbelow: -   

“Full and Final Compliance

This is to confirm that pursuant to order against the Flipkart Internet Private Limited which is Opposite Party No.1 of the Complainant CC No. 246/2020, the said order hereby satisfactorily complied by Flipkart Internet Private Limited by providing compliance Demand Draft in my name bearing No. 659925 drawn from HSBC Bank dated 29.12.2023 of Rs.11,593/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Three Only) as full and final compliance amount.

I am satisfied with the compliance made by the company and hereby acknowledge receipt of the above Demand Draft in full and final satisfaction. I further state that in the best interest of Opposite Party No.1; I have no grievance, allegations, claims, dispute nor any other outstanding or pending dues or issues, whatsoever in the above mentioned Complaint.

Further, I confirm that above mentioned compliance amount of Rs.11,593/- (Rupee Eleven Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Three Only) has been paid to me in respect of the above mentioned Complaint filed by me against Flipkart Internet Private Limited and compliance has been made by Flipkart Internet Private Limited.

Further, I will not claim anything in the future against Opposite Party No.1 and I will not file any case, appeal or revision against Opposite Party No.1. I further undertake to send the signed copy of this compliance acknowledgement at your office address. 

Signed duly on this 25 day of 01………2024.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

Sd/-

Jitendra Kumar Rana”

 

In view aforesaid compliance acknowledgement duly signed by Complainant/Respondent No.1, Learned Counsel for Respondents No.2 to 6 submitted that since the impugned order has been complied with, the appeal of the Appellant does not call for any action. However, Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that the present appeal is for exonerating the Appellant from any liability as in the impugned order Opposite Parties have been made jointly & severally liable to make compliance of the order.

 

10.         Pertinently, the Ld. District Commission in Para 4(iii) of its order has categorically observed that “………Similarly, OP-5, whose App was used by the complainant for transfer of the amount, can also not escape from its liability as OP-5 was also knowing about the account of the culprit in whose account the amount had been transferred and same has not been disclosed to the complainant till date”. Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Ld. District Commission completely overlooked the fact that the Appellant is a payment platform and does not play any role in transactions or for that matter confirming the veracity of transaction being initiated by its users on its platform.

 

11.         We find sufficient merit in the argument raised by Learned Counsel for the Appellant. Per averments made in the Complaint, the Respondent No.1/Complainant initiated the transaction and transferred the funds himself to Opposite Party No.1 who promised him delivery of a product i.e. iPhone 11 Pro Max claiming that the same was being offered at 96% discount. Although the said position has specifically been refuted by Opposite Party No.1, yet it emerged that the alleged payment had been made via Opposite Party No.5/Appellant herein. In these premises, the core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Appellant was liable for providing deficient services on the said transaction was successful. The answer to the question posted is in negative. The role and responsibility of the Appellant in the said transaction was limited to relaying the payment information entered by the Respondent No.1/Complainant himself on the PhonePe App to the UPI platform. Once the said transition was marked as successful, the role of the Appellant ended. Otherwise also, the Complainant in Para VII of his Consumer Complaint has specifically averred that when he approached the payment service portal i.e. PhonePe, it was duly intimated and confirmed that the payment was paid to Flipkart and even transaction details were shared.  Thus, in our concerted opinion as a service provider, involvement and role of the Appellant in the entire transaction came to an end the moment said transaction was shown to be successful. In other words, no liability could be fastened upon the Appellant for any deficient service as the transaction was duly successful at its end. The Ld. District Commission thus wrongly held the Appellant liable despite of the fact that there was no document either filed or considered by it which affirmed that any deficient services were provided by the Appellant. We thus deem it apposite to absolve the Appellant from any liability flowing from the impugned order. Since the impugned order has fully been complied with by the Respondents No.2 to 6 per acknowledgement signed by the Respondent No.1/Complainant, reproduced hereinabove, the other merits of this case, need not be discussed.

 

10.         In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, the appeal stands partly accepted and the order of the Ld. District Commission is modified to the aforesaid extent. No other point was urged, by the Learned Counsel for the parties.

 

11.         All the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off accordingly.

 

12.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

 

13.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

31^st July, 2024                                                                  

                                         Sd/-                         

                                                                (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”