STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. | | 184 of 2018 |
Date of Institution | | 25.06.2018 |
Date of Decision | | 17.07.2018 |
One Mobikwik Systems Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at Orchid Centre, Gold Course Road,Near IILM Institute, Sector 53, Gurugram, Haryana, 122002 .
….Appellant
Versus
- Sh.Vipul Sharma s/o Sh.Kailash Nath, R/o H.No.101-C, SBP Homes Society, Sector 126, Kharar, Mohali-140307.
- Ms. Neena Sharma D/o Sh.Kailash Nath, R/o H.No.101-C, SBP Homes Society, Sector 126, Kharar, Mohali-140307.
- Connect Broadband,(Quadrant Televentures Limited) B-71, Industrial Focal Point, Phase-VII, Mohali 160055, Punjab
Also at: SCO No.451-452, First Floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.
……Respondents
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against order dated 23.04.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. Chandigarh in C.C.No.No. 569/2017..
Argued by: Mr.Sumit Roy, Advocate for the appellant.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has filed this appeal against order dated 23.04.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), partly allowing a complaint filed by respondent No.1&2/complainants. Vide said order, the Forum held the appellant deficient in providing service and accordingly awarded compensation of Rs.3000/- for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainants.
2. Before the Forum, it was case of the complainants that on 6.6.2017, complainant No.1 remitted an amount of Rs.808/- through e-platform of the appellant to respondent No.3/OP No.2. The amount so paid was debited to the account of complainant No.1. Respondent No.3/OP No.2 intimated the complainant that it had not received the amount towards bill raised. The matter was immediately brought to the notice of the appellant by sending an email. However, nothing was done to credit the said amount to the account of Respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 again raised a bill for claiming an amount of Rs.808.13p . In order to avoid disconnection, the said amount was paid by the complainants to respondent No.3. It was stated that by not taking any action and not refunding the amount, the appellant indulged into unfair trade practice and also was guilty of rendering deficient service.
3. Upon notice, reply was filed by the appellant. Factual position was admitted. Payment made on 6.6.2017 through the appellant by respondent No.1/complainant No.1 to respondent No.3 was admitted. It was not controverted that the said amount was paid by complainant No.1 through e-platform provided by the appellant. It was said that so far as service provider(appellant) is concerned, the transaction was successful. However, the said transaction was made unsuccessful at gateway at the merchant’s end i.e. respondent No.3. Neither intimation was given, nor the amount was refunded to the appellant by the said party, and as such, it did not come to know about the failed transaction. It was further stated that on getting intimation from respondent No.1/complainant No.1, the amount was refunded on 29.7.2017 when it was received from the end party i.e. respondent No.3. Pleading that there was no deficiency in providing service, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
Respondent No.3/OP No.2 did not appear before the Forum and suffered ex parte proceedings.
- To the reply, rejoinder was filed. Both the parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, evidence on record, and the arguments addressed, allowed the complaint vide order dated 23.4.2018, as referred to in the earlier part of the order, by observing as under ;
“Annexure R-3 clinches the whole issue in dispute, which reflects that the disputed amount of Rs.808/- was credited into the wallet account of the complainant maintained with Opposite Party No.1 on 29.7.2017, whereas the present complaint was filed on 27.7.2017 and due notices were issued to the Opposite Parties. The e-mail correspondences placed on record by the complainant reflects the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 for delaying the process of crediting/refunding the amount of the complainant. The complainant duly raised the grouse with Opposite Party No.1 on 20.6.2017, which was resolved with much delay on 29.7.2017 by Opposite Party No.1 and apparently was resolved only once the complainant was forced to indulge into avoidable litigation. Since, the disputed amount has already been credited in the wallet account of the complainant maintained with Opposite Party No.1, so the complainant is only entitled for the compensation for harassment and litigation cost, which we assess to the tune of Rs.3000/-.”
5. We have heard Counsel for the appellant and are of the opinion that no case is made out to interfere in the order, under challenge. The Forum has specifically stated that despite getting intimation, action was taken at a very belated stage. A perusal of documents on record i.e. copies of emails clearly indicates that for non-receipt of amount paid by complainant No.1, intimation was sent to the appellant by complainant No.1 on 20.6.2017 (P-4). It was specifically stated that in its system payment made is not updated. In reply (P-5) to email dated 20.6.2017 (P-4) it was said that the amount has not been received and on receiving the same, it would be credited to his account. Thereafter, the complainants continued to send emails but did not get any reply. Vide email dated 2.7.2017(P-7) the appellant tendered apology for the delay in not receiving the refund of unsuccessful transaction by complainant No.1. It was further stated that they have sent advice to the operator to check the status of the transaction and on getting response, action will be taken. Similar reply was again sent on 6.7.2017& 8.7.2017 (P-8 & P-9). Ultimately the amount was refunded on 29.7.2017,
6. In this world of technology, such an act is to be termed only as deficient service. Contention of Counsel for the appellant that qua failed transaction, appellant would come to know only when it is intimated either by the person making payment or the person who has not received the payment for whom it was made, is totally unacceptable. Software should be such that immediately on failure of transaction it should be notified to the appellant or similarly situated operator and immediate action should have been taken. Not only above, it is on record and admitted fact that failure of transaction on 6.6.2017 was brought to the notice of appellant by complainant No.1 on 20.6.2017. Even then no action was taken despite sending repeated emails by complainant No.1 to the appellant. It is on record that complainant No.1 intimated the appellant that the payment made is not updated in the system. However, even then no remedial step was taken. In such e-platform transaction, it is only click of mouse which matters. All transactions are automatically updated and intimation is sent through self generated messages. For failure in such like cases, fault lies on the service provider i.e. appellant. The amount awarded by the Forum for such lapse is not very high, rather it is on the lower side. No case is made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.
7.. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
8. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
9. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
