DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 91/2024

Date of Institution: 23.02.2024

Order Reserved on: 21.03.2024  

Order Passed on: 22.03.2024

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Order By: Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

ORDER

1. The matter was listed for order on admission. The complainant has filed the present complaint, inter-alia stating that OP1 and OP2 are deficient in providing the service to the complainant. it is submitted that he had ordered a sports watch to the supplier (who is not the party to the present complaint) and has transferred the amount of Rs.12,000/- as per instructions of the supplier to that account number through OP2 (complainant’s own banker) and bill dated 15.04.2024, Annexure A1, was given to the complainant. The delivery was promised within three days by drop shipping, however, before the date of delivery, the supplier started asking for more money and sent a bill wherein the quantity of the watches were mentioned as 5 in numbers, however, it was communicated to the complainant that same is error and the watch would be delivered at his doorstep.
2. The complainant submits that no watch was delivered to the complainant as he has refused to pay any other charges except what was the charge of the watch. Complainant realising the possibility of merchant dispute; he immediately lodged a complaint dated 17.01.2024 with OP2 which was closed citing reason “your request could not be processed (0713 9,558) with OP2”.
3. The complainant also emailed to OP1 (supplier’s Banker) which was replied that bank account details of the customer of their bank cannot be provided and that customer of their bank is not traceable. The complainant then again emailed OP1 alleging the lack of KYC, and diligence in maintaining accounts with their banks which are regulated by RBI, of which an investigation was promised. However, complainant submits that non-diverging of the information by OP2 amounts to breach of consumer’s right.
4. The complainant prayed for refund of Rs. 12,000/- for the purchase of the watch from OP1, for not securing the transaction or the IP addresses of OP seller and other relevant withdraw details of the amount and the KYC details, interim direction for furnishing such information by the OP1, adding relevant account holder of OP1 bank as a relevant party on furnishing of such details, along with compensation and damages.
5. Upon perusal of the complaint, and the documents in support and hearing the complainant in person, it is found that as per the admitted case of the complainant, the complainant has made the payment to OP1, through his bank OP2 and upon his instruction. OP2 his bank has transferred the money to OP1, who in turn further transferred the money to the supplier of the watch who is not party to the dispute. The grievance of the complainant was that he wants the details of the customer of OP1, who is the supplier of the watch, which information was not provided by OP1 to the complainant.
6. From the documents on record as well as the admitted case of the complainant, it is established that OP2 acted in the way it was directed by the complainant. Under this circumstance it is the complainant’s responsibility that the information given by him/her to the Bank in this regard is error free, accurate, proper and complete.
7. Further, the complainant has not filed any document pertaining to asking for the refund of Rs. 12,000/-  fromOP2  or any document pertaining that some fraud or forgery has been committed. Rather it is the admitted case of the complainant that he had directed OP2 to transfer the money to OP1. The transaction is completed as soon as the money is transferred from OP2 to OP1 as per the direction of the complainant and hence there is no deficiency on the part of OP2, his banker.
8. OP2 has provided the facility of payment for transactions executed by the complainant and has executed the transaction as per instruction of the complainant transferred the amount by debiting from the complainant’s account to OP1 bank account (merchants’/supplier account). The OP2’s work ends here and is not responsible/liable for any further Act.
9. The complainant failed to establish any privity of contract with OP1 with respect to the information of the account of its (OP2’s) customers or to know the KYC details. Therefore, this commission find no merits even against OP1, as OP1 is not his service provider for consideration and even cannot be directed to provide particulars of its customer to him (third party) without the permission of his customer and hence there appears to be no deficiency either on the part of OP2, nor the complainant has been able to prove that he is service seeker (consumer) of OP1.

Therefore the complainant cannot be admitted and is rejected.

Copy of the order be supplied/sent to the party free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 22.03.2024.