State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ebay India Pvt. Ltd. vs Ajay Kumar on 6 February, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 213 / 2013
eBay India Pvt. Ltd.
14th Floor, North Block, R-Tech Park
Western Express Highway, Goregaon East
Mumbai - 400 063
Through its Authorized Representative
......Appellant / Opposite Party
Versus
Sh. Ajay Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Kumar
R/o H.No. 204, Keshav Nagar, Society Road, Laksar, Haridwar
......Respondent / Complainant
Mr. A.K. Verma, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Respondent in Person
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 06/02/2014
ORDER
(Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the ex-parte judgment and order dated 26.06.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 182 of 2012, thereby allowing the consumer complaint and directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 23,135/- within a month from the date of the order.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant-Sh. Ajay Kumar had online booked an order for "Samasung 4GB Micro Sd Card"
from the opposite party-eBay India Pvt. Ltd. on 11.03.2012 and made a payment of Rs. 135/- through his debit card. The complainant alleged that according to the rules of the company, if the order has not been delivered to the customer within stipulated time, the customer could request for refund of the amount. The said card was not supplied to the complainant till 2 19.03.2012, therefore, he had sent an e-mail to the company for refunding his amount. On 23.03.2012, the company rejected the complainant's "Refund Request" through e-mail and phone, on account of "Proof of Delivery Verified". The complainant sent several letters to the company for refunding his amount, but the opposite party did not pay any heed and did not refund the aforesaid amount to the complainant. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The District Forum allowed the consumer complaint in the above manner vide its order dated 26.06.2013. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party through its authorized representative has filed this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party and respondent-complainant in person and perused the material placed on record.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant manages and operates a website with the address www.ebay.in, which acts as an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000 between a buyer and a seller. The role of the appellant is limited to that of an objective facilitator and has no control over the sale of the product in question at all. He argued that the respondent had made an online order for the purchase of a "Samasung 4GB Micro Sd Card" from the seller on the appellant's website and made payment of Rs. 135/- through his debit card. The learned counsel further argued that the respondent is not a bonafide consumer, because purchasing a product worth Rs. 135/- and claiming a huge compensation and damages amounting to Rs. 23,000/- shows that the consumer complaint has been filed with a motive to earn profit. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not meant for earning profit. The respondent has failed to adduce any evidence in justification of his claim for Rs. 9,000/- and Rs. 14,000/-. The District Forum has not adjudicated the matter on merits. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
35. Respondent reiterated the facts of the case and argued in support of the impugned order.
6. We considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent-Sh. Ajay Kumar. We are not convinced with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is merely an intermediary between the buyer and seller by managing and operating the website www.ebay.in. When we compare this mode of marketing with the traditional marketing system comprising a chain of retailer, wholesaler, distributor and manufacturer, then the appellant can be put at par with a retailer in cyber marketing or e-shopping system. If a consumer purchases some product from a retailer and finds it defective or of inferior quality, then the retailer cannot shrug off his shoulders and cannot escape from his responsibility towards the consumer, merely by saying that it is the manufacturer, who has manufactured such product. It is also the duty of the retailer to sell such products, which are not defective and if a product is found defective, then he should replace it with non-defective product or refund its cost to the consumer. So, is the case with e-shopping or cyber marketing. Thus, the appellant's role is like a retailer and he is liable for any loss caused to the consumer, if the product ordered by him was not delivered. In the instant case, the appellant has failed to prove that the respondent had received the product which he had ordered for. Therefore, the appellant should have refunded the cost of the product in time, but the appellant did not do so till yet. As such, the appellant is liable to pay compensation to the respondent for mental and physical agony he has suffered. An important aspect of this case is that the respondent is a student of B.Sc. IInd year and for a student, even a small amount of Rs. 135/- matters a lot. Further, we are impressed to note that a respondent-student is so aware for his rights, as a consumer, and he contested the case himself before the District Forum. Even before this Commission, the respondent contested the case himself without any fear that the appellant's case is being pleaded by an experienced lawyer. For this endeavour, we would like to say to him "bravo". However, he has 4 failed to justify the cost of litigation and compensation he has prayed for. The District Forum, because the case was proceeded ex-parte against the appellant, has awarded the cost and compensation, as per prayer made by the respondent in his consumer complaint. We do not find this approach of the District Forum judicious. The District Forum, while awarding the cost and compensation, should have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the cost of the product. Since the respondent is a student, we think that an award of Rs. 5,000/- including the cost of the card and compensation for mental agony would be adequate in this case. The respondent has contested the case himself before the District Forum as well as before this Commission and this way, he has got exposure to consumer disputes and functioning of the Consumer Fora. This exposure would help the respondent in future.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 26.06.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 182 of 2012 is modified by reducing the awarded amount to Rs. 5,000/-. Cost of the appeal made easy.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL)