STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No :         272 of 2019

Date of Institution:       20.03.2019

Date of Decision :                 06.05.2019

M/s Naaptol Online Shopping Private Limited, 11, Conupus, Kabra Galaxy, Star 1, CHS, Brahmand, Azad Nagar, Thane (W), Maharashtra -400607.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

Rakesh son of Surender Singh, resident of Village and Post Office Bhalout, District Rohtak, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                             Ms. Manjula, Member                   

Present:              Shri Rajesh Bura, counsel for the appellant.

                                                   O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

          The instant appeal has been filed by M/s Naaptol Online Shopping Private Limited, hereinafter referred to as the opposite party, for challenging the order dated 07.02.2019 passed by learned District Forum, Rohtak whereby the complaint filed by Rakesh, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, was allowed and the opposite party directed to refund Rs.33,500/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses within one month from the date of the order.

2.      According to the complainant, he had purchased a Juicer & Slicer Combo + Free multi Cutter with Peeler SKU 11655 for the consideration of Rs.1,098/- from the opposite party on 31.07.2017.  On 18.08.2017, he received a call from Mobile No.7091544272 and the caller introduced himself as an employee of the opposite party and further stated that all the buyers of opposite party had been included in a lottery and as the complainant had made purchase from the opposite party, his name was included in the draw.  In the draw, he had won TATA Safari.  He was asked to choose TATA Safari or its value amounting to Rs.12,60,000/-.  He was asked to deposit Rs.8,500/- in the Account bearing No.20382078507 in the name of Sunil Paswan, an employee of opposite party and Rs.25,000/- in Account No.323417134 in the name of another employee Sajjan Kumar of the opposite party.  The complainant thought that the caller was playing fraud with him but the caller gave all the details of order of opposite party.  The complainant believed the caller and deposited the aforementioned amounts in State Bank of India, Rohtak on 18.08.2017.  Subsequent to the same, the complainant received another call from Mobile No.7463846689 and he was asked to deposit Rs.37,800/- in the aforementioned accounts. The complainant became convinced that a fraud was being played with him, so, he asked to return the amount of Rs.33,500/-.  The caller told him about enticing the people and cheating them but denied to return the money.  The details of the order was in the knowledge of the opposite party, which was intentionally leaked to the caller/employees of opposite party, who had made phone calls to him.  The act of opposite party was illegal and there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Accordingly, he filed the complaint and sought directions to the opposite party to pay Rs.33,500/- to him, which the opposite party had got deposited from him, Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite party filed the reply that after receiving the order from the complainant, it forwarded the order to the concerned seller for the purpose of sale and delivery and the item was dispatched by the seller and delivered on 31.07.2017.  However, the Customer Care Executive expressed shock and surprise as they were receiving complaints from a number of customers, who had deposited amounts in the aforementioned bank accounts and the accounts were in the name of individuals.  The opposite party had already lodged FIRs at various police stations in respect of the above crime and investigation was going on.  The complainant had not deposited any amount in the name of the company and the same was deposited in the personal accounts of Sunil Paswan and Sajjan Kumar.  The opposite party had not intentionally leaked customer data.  Accordingly, it prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence, the learned District Forum held that the opposite party had failed to protect the data of the complainant, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the opposite party was liable to compensate the complainant and accordingly, allowed the complaint and directed to refund an amount of Rs.33,500/- alongwith interest besides Rs.5,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that opposite party had not intentionally leaked customer data nor failed to protect the data due to which the hackers contacted the customers and cheated them.  The complainant had deposited the money on the asking of Sunil Paswan and Sajjan Kumar, who had no concern with the opposite party and as such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

6.      It may be that Sunil Paswan and Sajjan Kumar had no concern with the opposite party yet the fact remains that the particulars of the order ID and personal details of the complainant, which only the opposite party could know, had reached the aforesaid two persons.  Merely because the opposite party had lodged an FIR in regard to the factum of cheating on the part of Sunil Paswan and Sajjan Kumar is no ground to absolve the opposite party.  More so, when nothing has come on record as to what steps were taken by the Investigating agency in the FIR lodged by the opposite party.  The opposite party on its own was required to keep all the information provided by the people like the complainant in the present case fully secured so that it may not fall into the hands of unscrupulous people, who could misuse the information so received and cheat innocent customers of the money received by Sunil Paswan and Sajjan Kumar in their individual bank accounts.  As the opposite party had failed to ensure that the information received by it did not land in the hands of mischief mongers/unscrupulous people, it would result in deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thereafter, the learned District Forum rightly directed the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.33,500/- alongwith interest besides Rs.5,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.

7.      Being devoid of any merit, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.21,418/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

UK