AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Binoy Kumar, Presiding Member
The present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) has been filed by Indiamart InterMESH Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Petitioner/Indiamart”) against the Impugned Order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji, Goa (hereinafer referred to as the “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 25/2019, whereby, the Appeal filed by the Dr. Rajanala Nirmala (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No. 1/Complainant”) was allowed.
Brief facts of the case as per the Complaint are that on 25.07.2018 the Complainant made a payment of ₹32,460/- for 4 Single Cots Bed Spacewood Wenge Modular Furniture (for short product) through Indiamart to King Furniture (hereinafter referred to as “Vendor/Respondent No. 2”). It is the case of the Complainant that Respondent No. 2 had confirmed that they are the dealers of Spacewood Wenge Furniture in India accordingly the Complainant confirmed the order for 4 Single Cots of Spacewood make. Respondent No. 2 delayed delivery of the product even after receiving the full final payment of ₹ 32,460/- from the Complainant. Due to delay in delivery, the Complainant lodged her first grievance with a representative of Indiamart on 16.08.2018. After several days of delay, the Complainant received 4 Single Cots through Railways for which the Complainant had to bear additional freight cost of ₹1,207/-. Upon receiving the product, the Complainant was surprised to see that the product was of cheap plywood quality not of Spacewood material. As the product did not match the description, the Complainant contacted Respondent No. 2 requesting for full refund he assured the Complainant that he will send someone to collect the items, that he will issue refund after receiving the product. However, there was no response from him afterwards the product is lying as unused with the Complainant till date.
Aggrieved by the above act of the Respondent No. 2 the Petitioner, the Complainant filed Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North Goa (for short District Forum). The District Forum partly allowed the Complaint. The District Forum discharged the Petitioner Indiamart directed the Respondent No. 2 to take back the product return to the Complainant the amount of ₹ 32,460/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchase till final payment within one month of the Order, along with ₹25,000/- towards mental agony ₹10,000/- as cost of litigation.
Aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, the Complainant appealed before the State Commission against discharge of Petitioner Indiamart herein.
The State Commission in its Order dated 05.02.2020 partly allowed the Appeal directed both the Petitioner Respondent No. 2 herein to jointly /or severally comply with the directions of the District Commission.
The relevant portion of the Order of the State Commission in First Appeal No. 25/2019, dated 05.02.2020 is reproduced herein:
“The Appeal is partly allowed.
Both the OPs, jointly /or severally are directed to take back the four single cots return to the Complainant the amount of Rs. 32,460/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 25/07/2018 till final payment, within one month from the date of this Order. Both the OPs jointly severally shall pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant as compensation towards mental agony, monetary loss inconvenience caused to her a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation. In case, the said amount of Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 10,000/- is not paid within the time as fixed above, then thereafter the same shall be paid along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till final payment. The impugned order st s modified as above.”
Against the Order of the State Commission, the Petitioner/Indiamart filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission with the following prayer:
“In light of the aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice may be pleased to:
a) Allow the present Revision Petition;
b) Set aside the order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji – Goa in Appeal No. 25 of 2019;
c) Dismiss the complaint no.63 of 2018 quo the petitioner
d) pass such further orders as may be deemed fit proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”
In the Revision Petition, the Petitioner/Indiamart has raised following key issues:
a. The State Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering in the cogent reasoned order passed by the District Forum, in absence of any cogent ground for interference.
b. The State Commission has no reason to interfere in the order passed by the District Forum, as the Petitioner, neither promised any services or consideration, nor in any manner guaranteed the quality of the goods delivered by a third party entity was merely chosen by the Respondent No. 1 as a vehicle for the purpose of payment to the chosen supplier herein the Respondent No. 2 with respect to the interaction /or transaction of cots agreed upon at www.amazon.in
c. The State Commission has erroneously concluded that the payment of ₹32,460/- was paid directly by the Respondent No. 1 to the Petitioner whereas the payment receipt annexed by the Respondent No. 1 to the original complaint as Annexure 1 reflects that the payment was made by her to the Respodnent No. 2 while using third party payment link of PAYWITH INDIAMART, a separate company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 the payment was never made to the Petitioner herein.
d. The State Commission failed to appreciate the finding of the District Forum about the efforts made by the Petitioner to help the Respondent No. 1 without assuming any liability responsibility.
e. The Impugned Order, passed by the State Commission is based on surmises conjectures is opposed to the facts is contrary to the record of the case.
f. The Impugned Order is ex facie illegal bad in law contrary to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act deserves to be set aside.
I have heard the Learned Counsel of both the parties have gone through material available on record.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Indiamart has argued that the Complainant did not place an order for the product on Indiamart but used only its sister concern’s payment gateway. The payment link was provided by the Vendor/Respondent No. 2 who the Complainant had found through www.amazon.in, nowhere is it mentioned that the order was placed on Indiamart.com. The payment made by the Complainant was directly to the Vendor not to Indiamart as Indiamart was only a facilitator by offering a payment gateway. The Learned Counsel for Petitioner further argued that the Complainant did not avail of the Payment Protection Policy being offered by the Petitioner; instead she made the payment through a link which directly transfers the amount to the Vendor.
The Learned Amicus Curiae for the Complainant/Respondent No. 1 strongly resisted the Petition argued that Indiamart was responsible for the deficiency of service it failed to ensure that the Vendor who made the sale using its platform was adhering to the quality of goods as described on its website. The Petitioner cannot take refuge under the argument that it is only a ‘matchmaking’ platform for buyers sellers as they are not a charitable organisation but a profit making enterprise. Their business model itself is based on the use of website by thous s of customers vendors over internet. The Petitioner failed in honouring the Payment Protection Policy offered by it, by directly releasing to the Vendor the amount without ensuring that the product that was shipped was as per parameters described. She wanted the Petition to be dismissed.
I will only deal with the main issue raised by the Petitioner/Indiamart as it has reiterated several issues which has already been dealt with by the State Commission District Forum. The main issue raised by the Petitioner is that the Complainant did not use the platform as a primary source of purchase, but used only for making payment to Respondent No. 2 / Vendor, who provided the payment link to the Complainant. The Complainant did not avail of the ‘Payment Protection Policy’. The Petitioner produced archived pages of payment procedure on its website prevailing at that time showing that there is a process for availing the ‘Payment Protection Policy’ separately there was provision of direct payment to the Vendor through payment link provided by the Vendor. So these two processes are distinct not related.
The procedure coverage under ‘Payment Protection Policy’ requires explicit consent of the buyer as well as details of the seller product. The main feature of this payment plan is that the Indiamart takes the payment from buyer releases it to the Vendor only after the receipt of the product is verified. A representative of Indiamart contacts the buyer after filling the aforesaid form who verifies the receipt. In the present case, however the Complainant/Respondent No. 1 was provided only payment links of “Pay with Indiamart”, a payment facilitator which provides the service of direct payment to the Vendor. This form of payment does not have the mechanism to withhold the payment to Vendor until verification of delivery. After raising grievance with representatives of Indiamart, the company then tried to contact the Vendor but could not do so. The Petitioner thereafter provided services of an Advocate free of cost to the Complainant to send legal notice to Vendor which reflects that the Petitioner was intending to help the Complainant to resolve the issue. It is a matter of fact that the Complainant made the payment without ‘Payment Protection Plan’ was therefore not covered by this Policy, hence the Orders of the District Forum State Commission need to be set aside in the interest of justice.
It is to be noted however that this observation is limited only to the particular facts circumstances of the present Complaint. It is also a fact that the Respondent No. 2 was listed on Indiamart website. It is also a fact that the Vendor / Respondent No. 2 has played fraud by giving wrong address on both Amazon Indiamart websites. The name address of the Vendor that was provided is not genuine even on a casual glance. Even the legal notice sent by Complainant, various notices of appearance before all the Commissions were not delivered to the address as it did not exist. In my opinion, it is the duty of the e-commerce site to verify the Vendors Suppliers that have listed their products so that in future such incidents of fraud do not recur.
In view of the discussion above, the present Revision Petition is allowed. The Order of the State Commission the District Forum are set aside the Complaint is dismissed.
The Petitioner/Indiamart is directed to henceforth make due diligence of Vendors before allowing them to be registered on its site. In so far as payment gateway, if any provided, is concerned, the same shall be appropriately segregated from the main website in order to avoid confusion in the minds of consumers / buyers that it should be limited to registered buyers sellers only.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.