MR. PRABODHA KUMAR DASH, PRESIDENT:-
The present C.C.Case No. 35/2020 filed by the Complainant made OP No.1 as manufacturer, a mobile glass cutter Company and belongs to Hyderabad, Telengana. Op No.2 is India Mart Intermesh Ltd. Head Office at Noida, U.P popularly known as India Mart, an electronic service provider advertised in its website to sell products of Op No.1 through E-Commerce business. Complainant unemployed educated youth has an Mobile sale shop having seen the advertisement in the India Mart booked a mobile glass cutter machine in E-Commerce platform of OP No.2 and received quotation from Op No.1 for the machine in question on dt. 19.08.2020 for cost of the product was Rs. 5,36,900/- and both agreed for Rs. 5,00,000/- of such machine. The Complainant accepted the offer that he has to pay total cost of the machine in advance & OpNo.1 in their condition influenced the Complainant to pay the advance through OpNo.2(India Mart) whereby the Complainant transferred Rs. 1,40,000/- in two transactions to the OpNo.1 through OpNo.2 & accordingly a proforma invoice sent to Complainant by OPNo.1. Subsequently, the Op No.1 added straingent term & conditions which was not existed earlier & the condition was “ No refund & cancellation once order is placed”. The OpNo.1 added condition which prejudiced the Complainant a lot unless this Commission redressed the same, the Complainant will suffer financial loss. The Op No.1 committed deficiency in service & adopted unfair contract, unfair trade practice for which the OpNo.2 being the advertiser & endorser of such a fraud company knowing it very well illegal activities of OpNo.1 is vicariously liable under Sec-2(II) of C.P.Act,2019, and unfair contract U/S-2(46) so also for unfair trade practice U/s-2(47) of C.P.Act, 2019. This Commission while undergoing E-Commerce Rules, 2020 wherein both the entities whether it is market place E-Commerce entity or inventory Commerce entity are liable if they failed to perform their duties as prescribed under Rule-6 of E-Commerce Rules, 2020. The OpNo.2 being a advertiser failed to provide adequate protection from fraud committed by OpNo.1. As per E-Commerce Rules, 2020 no seller offering goods or services through a market place E-Commerce entity shall adept any unfair trade practice whether in the course of the offer on the e-commerce entity’s platform or otherwise.
We have gone through the duties & liabilities of E-Commerce so also duties & liabilities of Inventory E-Commerce entity under E-Commerce Rules, 2020 where the Ops are liable. Therefore the Ops are liable to pay Rs.1,40,000/-already paid by the Complainant to Op No.1(payment receipt annexed) through OpNo.2. Both the Ops are liable to refund the said amount with interest and also to pay compensation for mental agony and also litigation cost. Though the Ops were sufficiently noticed & tracking report filed, the OpNo.2 appeared and filed written version but OpNo.1 did not receive the notice. Therefore the OpNo.1 set ex-parte.
O R D E R
It is directed that, the Op No.2 shall pay Rs. 1,40,000/- with @6% interest P.A from the date of online payment, Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony & harassment undergone for 2 years & Rs. 2000/- for cost of the litigation within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Ops are liable for execution proceeding. The C.C.Case is allowed.
Further the OpNo.2 is at liberty after making payment to recover the same from Opno.1 by exercising all the legal remedies available under the law.
Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.
Pronounced in the open Commission, this the 2nd day of January,2023.
I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
