State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Paytam vs Rakesh Kumar on 5 August, 2019
First Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
1) First Appeal No.187 of 2018
Date of institution : 28.03.2018
Reserved on : 23.07.2019
Date of decision : 05.08.2019
PAYTM (PAYTM E-COMMERCE PVT. LTD), B-121, Sector 5,
Noida-201301 (Uttar Pradesh) through its Authorized
Representative.
....Appellant/OP No.1.
Versus
1. Rakesh Kumar Son of Sh. Tarsem Chand, Resident of
Lakhwali Basti, Patran, District Patiala.
......Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Infinity Informatics Private Limited, 301, EROS Apartment,
56, Nehru Palace, New Delhi through its Managing
Director also at 20, Dobson Road, Sri Niketan Building,
Howrah West Bengal-711101.
...Respondent No.2/OP No.2
2) First Appeal No.69 of 2018
Date of institution : 09.02.2018
Reserved on : 23.07.2019
Date of decision : 05.08.2019
PAYTM (PAYTM E-COMMERCE PVT. LTD), B-121, Sector 5,
Noida-201301 (Uttar Pradesh) through its Authorized
Representative.
....Appellant/OP
Versus
1. Mukesh Kumar Son of Sh. Kamlesh Kumar, Resident of
H.No.175, Ward No.9, Zora Basti, Tehsil Patran, District
Patiala.
......Respondent No.1/Complainant
F.A. No.187 of 2018 2
2. Infinity Informatics Private Limited, 301, EROS Apartment,
56, Nehru Palace, New Delhi through its Managing
Director.
.....Proforma Respondent
First Appeals against the orders
dated 20.02.2018 & 11.01.2018 of the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Quorum:-
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Presiding Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Puneet Kakkar, Advocate For the respondents : Ex-parte MRS. KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER This order will dispose of the above noted two appeals preferred against the orders dated 20.02.2018 & 11.01.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short, "the District Forum"), whereby the two complaints filed by different complainants, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, were allowed. The question of facts and law involved in both these appeals are same, which have been filed by the appellants. The appellants of these appeals are opposite party no.1 before the District Forum in the original complaints and the respondent no.1 of these appeals are complainants and respondent no.2 of these appeals are OP no.2 therein.F.A. No.187 of 2018 3
It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum. First Appeal No.187 of 2018
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/OP No.1 to challenge therein order dated 20.02.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short, "the District Forum"), whereby the complaint filed by the respondent No.1/complainant was allowed and OPs were directed to provide the Apple i phone 6 (16-GB Grey Space) to him at Rs.60/- only and further to pay a consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2,000/- only within 30 days from the date of the receipt of copy of the order.
Facts of the Complaint No.347 of 2016
3. The factual matrix of the matter in brief, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant placed an order of Apple iphone 6 (16 GB-space Grey) with OP No.1 on 09.03.2016 vide order number 1590090340 under the offer of OP, which was to be delivered by OP No.2. The cost of the mobile set in question was Rs.52,000/- and there was a discount of Rs.51,965/- on the same, as such, he was to pay an amount of Rs.35/- along with a sum of Rs.25/- as delivery charges and the said amount was deducted from his PAYTM wallet, vide Annexure C-1. On the confirmation of the order of the mobile set on the website it was F.A. No.187 of 2018 4 assured by OP No.1 that "the order has been successfully placed and we will ship it soon. You will receive a separate Email once your order ships". The acknowledgment of the e- mail is Annexure C-2. Thereafter, on 10.03.2016, he received an email from OP No.1, vide which OP expressed its inability to deliver the order for Apple i phone 6, 16 GB due to unavoidable circumstances and cancelled the order vide e-mail dated 10.03.2016 Annexure C-3. He sent an email to OP No.1 to know about the circumstances under which the order could not be delivered, but to no effect. On 18.07.2016, he also served legal notice upon OP No.1, but of no avail. Complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and prayed that the OPs be directed to provide Apple iphone 6 (16 GB) to him and further prayed for compensation for mental harassment and agony and litigation expenses. Defence of the Opposite Parties
4. Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. Whereas, OP No.2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against ex-parte on 25.01.2017 by the District Forum.
5. OP No.1 filed its separate written reply. In preliminary objections it stated that OP No.1 is an intermediary as defined in Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and exempted from liability for third party information, data or F.A. No.187 of 2018 5 communication link made available or hosted by it. Neither OP No.1 is responsible for the products that are listed on the website nor Paytm intervenes or influence any customer in any manner. Being an intermediary, OP No.1 is not liable for the act of Merchant i.e. OP no.2, which inadvertently entered Rs.35/- in the column of MRP instead of quantity and entered Rs.36,899/- in the place of quantity instead of MRP. OP No.2 shall be solely responsible and liable for any complaints and queries of buyers with respect to the products booked. Hence, for any liability with respect to the ordered product shall lies with the merchant. It is impossible for any intermediary like the appellant herein to monitor millions of products being displayed on its portal. The intermediary, upon receipt of a specific knowledge, can only take actions of disabling the product in question from its portal as per provisions contained in Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011. It is further submitted that the appellant has also, as a policy of fair play, blocked the merchant from using the online platform provided by OP No.1 and has also taken stringent action of delisting against the seller. The complaint is alleged to be frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed. It was further averred that it does not sell or offer to sell any product. It merely provides a technology platform (online market place) where independent third party sellers can list their products for sale themselves. OP No.1 is not directly involved in the sale transaction between the F.A. No.187 of 2018 6 customer and seller, which is exclusive domain of Merchant and customers. The goods have been bought by complainant from an independent third party seller i.e. OP No.2, who sold its product through website of OP No.1. Accordingly, complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer of OP No.1. OP No.1 had specifically made it clear to the complainant that certain orders booked on the platform of OP No.1, the sellers are unable to accept and service and these may need to be cancelled as per clause 6 of terms and conditions as available on the website of OP No.1, which was duly accepted by him while placing the order. On merits, OP No.1 stated that it was not a warrantor of the product, nor was liable for any manufacturing defect. It was further stated that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and Paytm. It was further stated that the OP duly replied to the email written by the complainant and informed him about the real picture to the effect that his order had been cancelled. OP No.1 denied any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part by denying the other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Finding of the District Forum
6. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their F.A. No.187 of 2018 7 behalf, allowed the complaint against opposite parties, vide impugned order. Hence, the appeal.
Contentions of the Parties
7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as respondents were proceeded ex-parte vide orders dated 19.03.2019 & 23.07.2019. We have carefully gone through the records of the case.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.1 vehemently contended that appellant, being the owner of the website www.paytm.com and the Mobile Application 'Paytm', acts as a platform for different sellers like respondent No.2 to sell their products and for different buyers like respondent No.1 to access and purchase amongst variety of goods offered by various sellers on the terms and conditions as enumerated by them on the website of appellant/Paytm. Appellant/Paytm neither sells nor offers to sell any products. It merely provides a technology platform (an online marketplace) where independent third party sellers i.e. respondent No.2) can list their products for sale. The sellers themselves (and not Paytm) manage display of their (sellers/merchants) goods, it's pricing, it's catalogue and orders placed by customers online and are responsible for the sale/purchase of their products on the website. Appellant is neither responsible for the products that are listed on the website by various third party sellers, nor does F.A. No.187 of 2018 8 Paytm intervene or influence any customers in any manner about its pricing etc. Appellant/Paytm is not directly involved in the sale transaction between the customer (respondent No.1) and seller (Respondent No.2), which is exclusive domain of Merchant and customers. Appellant has contended that District Forum has wrongly stated in the impugned order in para 8 that the contract of purchase of Apple iPhone was concluded at the time when payment of Rs.60/- was made by respondent No.1/complainant and accepted by appellant. The District Forum has also wrongly observed that it was not open for OP No.1 (appellant) to cancel the order of its own without the consent of respondent No.1. The fact of the matter is that the appellant is an intermediary as defined in the Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and exempted from liability for third party information, data or communication link made available or hosted by it, which is reproduced below:-
Exemption from liability of intermediary in certain cases:-
1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), an intermediary shall not be liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him.
2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply if -
a) The function of the intermediary is limited to provide access to a communication system F.A. No.187 of 2018 9 over which information made available by third parties is transmitted or temporarily stored or hosted; or
b) The intermediary does not-
i) Initiate the transmission,
ii) Select the receiver of the transmission,
and
iii) Select or modify the information
contained in the transmission;
c) The intermediary observes due diligence while
discharging his duties under this Act and also observes such other guidelines as the Central Government may prescribe in this behalf.
3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply if-
a) The intermediary has conspired or abetted or aided or induced, whether by threats or promise or authorize in the commission of the unlawful act;
b) Upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource, controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act, the intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material on that resource without vitiating the evidence in any manner.
Explanation- For the purpose of this section, the expression "third party information" means any information dealt with by an F.A. No.187 of 2018 10 intermediary in his capacity as an intermediary. As stated above, being an intermediary.
In view of the above, it is contended that the appellant/OP No.1 herein cannot be held liable for the act of Merchant i.e. Respondent No.2, who has inadvertently, entered Rs.35/- in the column of 'Selling Price' instead of quantity and entered Rs.52,000/- in the place of quantity instead of 'Selling Price'. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the case reported as "Harnam Singh and Ors. Vs. Smt. Purbi Devi and Ors", AIR 2000 HP 108, wherein it has been held as under :-
"The doctrine of privity of contract implies mutuality at will and is interaction of parties and their successors. It creates a legal bond or tie or vinculum juris personal to the parties. The rule, thus, is that no one except the parties to a contract can be bound by or entitled under a contract. This doctrine which debars third party to enforce a contract forbids the parties to the contract from enforcing any obligation there under against a stranger. A person cannot be subject to the obligation of a contract to which he is not a party and the logical consequence is that a stranger cannot acquire rights under a contract. This general rule, no doubt, is subject to certain exceptions."
It has been also agitated that the District Forum has failed to consider the fact that the Merchant i.e. respondent No.2 in the present appeal is solely responsible and liable for any complaints and queries of Buyers with respect to the products booked. Hence for any liability with respect to the ordered product lies with respondent No.2. It is impossible for any intermediary like the appellant herein to monitor millions of F.A. No.187 of 2018 11 products being displayed on its portal. The intermediary, upon receipt of a specific knowledge, can only take actions of disabling the product in question from its portal as per provisions contained in Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011 and as an extra caution, though not bound by law to terminate the contractual relationship with the concerned merchant. It is further submitted that the appellant has also, as a policy of fair play, blocked the merchant from using the online platform provided by the appellant and has also taken stringent action of delisting of concerned products of the respondent No.2. Passing the judgment against the appellant and ignoring such a vital fact is not judicious and is contrary to law. It has been further alleged that the District Forum has allowed the complaint and has directed both the opposite parties to provide the ordered Apple i-phone 6 (16 GB) to the complainant at a price of Rs.60/- only along with the consolidated litigation cost and compensation of Rs.2,000/-. The fact of the matter is that, admittedly, the amount of Rs.60/- paid by the complainant at the time of booking the order for purchasing the alleged product already stands refunded vide transaction id.1590090340 on dated 09.03.2016 by the appellant and the same has also been consumed by the complainant. The appellant being merely an online market place platform does not have any control or ownership of the product under contention nor have any privity to contract and the F.A. No.187 of 2018 12 products are listed, packed and delivered by the sellers like respondent No.2 themselves. Hence, it would not be in the interest of justice to direct the appellant to supply the alleged product for Rs.60/- that too with no fault on the part of the appellant. Even otherwise, the consumer complaint bearing no.347/2016 was not maintainable as respondent no.1 under the grab of claiming deficiency of service against OP has prayed for specific performance as follows which is not permissible in light of the various judgments of the Apex Court. Appellant had specifically made it clear to respondent No.1 that certain orders booked on the platform of appellant (Paytm), the seller are unable to accept and service and these may need to be cancelled as per "Clause 6" of terms and conditions as available in the website of the opposite party which was duly accepted by the complainant while placing the order. It is further submitted that the appellant has refunded the ordered amount to the complainant bank account as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The "Clause 6" of the terms and conditions is reproduced below :-
"Clause 6 - Cancellation"
Cancellation by Paytm: There may be certain orders that Paytm Merchant partners are unable to accept and service and these may need to be cancelled. Some situations that may result in your order being cancelled include, non-availability of the product or quantities ordered by you, non-availability of the delivery service in the address to which product is required to be shipped, inaccuracies or errors in pricing information specified by our merchant partners, or problems identified by Paytm's F.A. No.187 of 2018 13 credit and fraud avoidance department. Paytm may also require additional verifications or information before accepting any order. Paytm will contact you if all or any portion of your order is cancelled or if additional information is required to accept your order. If your order is cancelled after your credit card or bank account has been charged, the said amount will be reversed back in your credit card/bank account. A promo code, once used shall not be refunded in case of cancellation of order either by Customer or Paytm".
That passing the impugned order without appreciating the above mentioned terms and conditions specifically agreed by respondent No.1(complainant in the original complaint) cannot be enforced and deserves to be set aside at once. So far as the transaction between the complainant and opposite party No.1 is concerned, the complainant does not fall within the definition of "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Admittedly, the complainant has not bought any goods from appellant (Paytm) nor any inference can be drawn to this effect by any interpretation or analysis of the factual position explained hereinabove. The goods have been bought by the complainant from an independent third party seller i.e. respondent No.2 i.e. Infinity Infomatic (Pvt) Ltd. selling its products on the Website operated by the appellant/OP No.1. Accordingly, the complainant does not fall within the definition of "consumer" vis-à-vis the appellant/opposite party No.1. Further it is pertinent to reiterate here that the appellant is merely an online market place where independent third party sellers list their products for sale. The appellant was neither a necessary, nor a proper party in the consumer complaint, the consumer F.A. No.187 of 2018 14 complaint was liable to be dismissed due to misjoinder of parties. It was averred that the District Forum has completely overlooked the fact that the complainant has wrongfully impleaded the appellant company. Appellant is neither responsible for sale. Appellant is neither responsible for the products listed on the website nor does Paytm intervene or influence any customer in any manner about its price etc. Hence, they are not directly involved in the said sale transaction. Learned counsel for the appellant averred on similar lines as stated in his appeal and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Consideration of Contentions
9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record carefully.
10. Admittedly, respondent No.1 booked one apple iphone 6 (16 GB Grey) vide order No.1590090340 on 09.03.2016, originally costing Rs.52,000/- at a discounted price of Rs.35/- along with the delivery charges of Rs.25/- from Infinity Infomatic (Pvy) Ltd. (respondent No.2) using the online marketing place platform of the appellant company. The product was booked by complainant on 09.03.2016 at 08:06 PM, as per Ex.C-2, but the same was cancelled on 10.03.2016 at 11:57 AM by OP No.1 by sending e-mail dated 10.03.2016, vide Ex.C-3. It has been F.A. No.187 of 2018 15 alleged by respondent No.1 in the original complaint that the appellant is guilty of deficiency in service, as the above stated order bearing No.1590090340 was subsequently cancelled by the appellant and the product was not delivered to him. The complainant had made many requests to the appellant to deliver the mobile, but all in vain. A perusal of Ex.C-3 i.e. E-mail sent by the appellant company to the complainant reads that "We regret to inform you that merchant Infinity Infomatic Pvt. Ltd. is unable to deliver your order for Apple iPhone 6 16 GB (Space Grey) due to unavoidable circumstances". It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant has simply stated "unavoidable circumstances", as the reason for cancellation of the order that too of their own without seeking the consent of the complainant before cancelling the same. They have not produced any evidence on the record to show that the seller i.e. Infinity Infomatics Pvt. Ltd. was responsible for the cancellation of the order. It is assumed that there must have been some privity of contract between the seller and the appellant company due to which the services of the appellant company were hired on payment basis by the appellant company, which being an online portal, were displaying the products of the seller. We are of the view that the appellant company cannot cancel the order of their own on vague grounds as stated in the e-mail.
11. Appellant has interalia specifically raised certain preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the F.A. No.187 of 2018 16 complaint, mis-joinder or non-joinder of necessary parties and the law of governing the rule of intermediary that has been contended by the counsel for the appellant. During the course of arguments, the appellant has also referred to the section 79 of the Information Technology Act and Intermediary Rules pleading that the directions cannot be issued to the appellant being an Intermediary between the consumer and the seller and also that it is not a manufacturer.
12. No doubt, the role of the appellant is that of intermediary in the present case but it cannot be said that they have no role to play, as the harassment has been caused to the complainant, due to the cancellation of the said ordered product. It is general observation that the consumers are attracted by the offers and displays of various products on the website of such kind of appellant company and they place their orders on good faith. Online market place companies earn revenue each time when a consumer click and visit on their website. Moreover, the same is being done as per the terms and conditions between the online portal company and the sellers for a consideration. Hence, if appellant company can accept an order and subsequent cancellation also makes it equally responsible and being deficient in rendering the services. Therefore, the plea that the intermediary should not be held liable for the acts of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice does not find merit with us. F.A. No.187 of 2018 17
13. We have also gone through clause 6 of the terms and conditions related to the cancellation policy of the appellant company. It is our interpretation that the clause specifically also states that the order may be cancelled due to "non-availability of the product or quantities ordered, non-availability of the delivery services on the address, where the product is required to be shipped, inaccuracies or errors in pricing information specified by merchant partners or problems identified by Paytm's credit and fraud avoidance department". An inference can be drawn that the said order was cancelled without giving any specific reason and no evidence has been placed on record to show the accountability of the merchant seller in this case. The contention that complainant booked the order from an independent third party seller, selling its product on the website operated by the appellant, does not find merit to infer that no harassment has been caused to the complainant.
14. In view of the above discussions, the appeal is partly allowed and the order dated 20.02.2018 passed by the District Forum, Patiala is modified and following directions are issued to OP No.1:-
i) to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on
account of mental agony, harassment and
deficiency in service; and
F.A. No.187 of 2018 18
ii) to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost before this
Commission and District Forum.
Liberty is granted to OP no.1 to recover the said amounts from OP No.2 in accordance with law.
15. The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.1000/- at the time of filing of the appeal and it further deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- in compliance with order dated 04.04.2018 in this Commission. These amounts, along with interest, which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them. The respondent No.1 may approach the District Forum for the release of amounts awarded to him, vide this order, and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard, in accordance with law. M.A. No.1112 of 2019 (placing on record the documents) :
16. The appellant has filed miscellaneous application no.1112 of 2019 for placing on record marketplace agreement dated 07.09.2016 between Paytm and Infinity Infomatic Pvt. Ltd. (respondent no.2). We have perused this application thoroughly. We are of the view that at this appellate stage this application is not maintainable, however District Forum granted sufficient opportunities to OP now appellant to produce evidence, but OP/appellant failed to tender in evidence the same before the District Forum. At the time of filing the appeal F.A. No.187 of 2018 19 appellant has failed to file any application for additional evidence and this application, which has been filed by the appellant at the final stage of the appeal is just to delay the matter. Hence, we dismiss the same.
First Appeal No.69 of 2018
17. Similarly, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant/OP no.1, challenging order dated 11.01.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short, "the District Forum"), whereby the complaint filed by the respondent No.1/complainant was allowed, by directing the OPs to provide to the complainant, the Apple i phone 6 (16 GB Grey Space) for Rs.60/- only and further directed to pay a consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2000/- within 30 days from the date of the receipt of copy of the order.
Facts of the Complaint no.178 of 2016
18. Similarly in this complaint also, complainant placed an order of Apple iphone 6 (16 GB-space Grey) with the OP on 09.03.2016 vide order number 1590151496 under the offer of OP, which was available for an amount of Rs.35/- only along with a sum of Rs.25/- as shipping charges. OP deducted the said amounts from paytm account at 08:25 PM on 09.03.2016. The said mobile phone was to be delivered by 17.03.2016 as per the assurance given by OP at the address of the F.A. No.187 of 2018 20 complainant. It was further stated that complainant received an e-mail on 10.03.2016 at about 11:41 AM from the OP to the effect that his order was cancelled. Further the case of the complainant is that though he requested the OP number of times to deliver the product, but all in vain. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed that OP be directed to provide the mobile phone in question i.e. Apple i Phone 6(16 GB) to him and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
19. The OP filed written reply on the similar lines, as averred in its reply filed in complaint no.347 of 2016.
20. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence the appeal.
21. In view of the discussions and findings recorded in F.A. No.187 of 2018, the present appeal is partly allowed and the order passed by the District Forum is modified to the extent:-
i) to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service; and
ii) to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost before this Commission and District Forum.F.A. No.187 of 2018 21
Liberty is granted to OP no.1 to recover the said amounts from OP No.2 in accordance with law.
22. The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.1000/- at the time of filing of the appeal and it further deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- in compliance with order dated 04.04.2018 in this Commission. These amounts, along with interest, which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them. The respondent No.1 may approach the District Forum for the release of amounts awarded to him, vide this order, and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard, in accordance with law. M.A. No.1111 of 2019 (placing on record the documents) :
23. The appellant has filed miscellaneous application no.1111 of 2019 for placing on record marketplace agreement dated 07.09.2016 between Paytm and Infinity Infomatic Pvt. Ltd. (respondent no.2). We have perused this application thoroughly. We are of the view that at this appellate stage this application is not maintainable, however District Forum granted sufficient opportunities to OP now appellant to produce evidence, but OP/appellant failed to tender in evidence the same before the District Forum. At the time of filing the appeal appellant has failed to file any application for additional evidence and this application, which has been filed by the F.A. No.187 of 2018 22 appellant at the final stage of the appeal is just to delay the matter. Hence, we dismiss the same.
24. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) PRESIDING MEMBER (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER August 5, 2019.
SK/-