Date of filing:  03.03.2020                              Date of Disposal: 09.05.2023

 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,      BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.246/2020

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

Sri. Afthab Sayyad.K,

S/o. Sayyad Hafeezulla,

Aged About 28 Years,

R/at: No.17, 8^th Main,

(Rep by Sri. Vaseemuddin.A, Advocate)

- V/s -

1) Flipkart Private Limited,

Bellandur Buildings Alyssa,

Begonia & Clove Embassy

Tech Village, Outer Ring Road,

Represented by Authorized Signatory.

(Rep. by Sri.Nagaraja.S, Advocate)

2) The Branch Manager,

Syndicate Bank,

Mudbidri Branch,

No.4/199 B7, Navabharath

Complex, Church Road,

Mudbidri, Dakshina Kannada,

Karnataka-574 227.

(Rep. by Sri.Prashant.T.Pandit, Advocate) 

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI. SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT

01.    The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.

02.    It is not in dispute that, the complainant had purchased the San Disk 32 GB OTG pen drive on 21.10.2019 by using Flipkart pay later service from www.flipkart.com for a sum of Rs.599/- and as the complainant had failed to pay the money within the due date on 10.11.2019, the opposite party has charged Rs.100/- as late payment.  Hence the total payable was of Rs.699/-.  The complainant had paid all the charges of Rs.699/- by using net banking service from opposite party No.2 Syndicate Bank.  Further it is not in dispute that, the opposite party No.1 had made several email correspondence with the complainant that, the amount of Rs.699/- had not been credited to the account of opposite party No.1.

03.    It is the further case of the complainant that, even though the above said amount had been debited from the account of the complainant maintained at opposite party No.2 – Bank and credited to the account of opposite party No.1, without any reason the opposite party No.1 had made email correspondence with the complainant stating that, there was still balance to be payable by the complainant.  Further opposite party No.2 -Bank had stated that, the payment has been successfully credited to the 1^st opposite party.  Hence the complainant apprehended of legal action against the alleged non-payment of the amount.  Hence the complaint came to be filed.

04.    It is the contention of opposite party No.1 that, the account maintained by it reflected that, the amount has not been paid by the complainant.  Further any consideration paid by the complainant is directed to the seller of the product and not the answering opposite party No.1.  Further the grievance of the complainant should have been only against opposite party No.2.  Further the payment reminder were sent to the complainant on his registered mobile number and email ID on behalf of the seller of the product as no payment was credited to the sellers account.  Further since opposite party No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation, sought to dismiss the complaint.

05.    It is the contention of opposite party No.2 that, the complainant has no privity of contract with opposite party No.2.  Further the late payment charge is no way related to opposite party No.2 – Bank.  Further the statement of account of the complainant reveals that, the amount of Rs.699/- was duly credited to opposite party No.1.  Further opposite party No.2 is no way responsible or liable for any claim of the complainant.  Hence, it is sought to dismiss the complaint.

06.    To prove the case, the complainant (PW1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.P.1 to EX.P.4 documents.  The manager of opposite party No.2 – Bank (RW.1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.R.1 document.

07.    Counsels for complainant and opposite party No.2 – Bank have filed their respective written arguments.

08.    Heard the arguments.

09.    The points that would arise for consideration are as under:-

  (1) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

  (2) Whether the complainant is entitle for the 

      relief sought ?

      (3) What order ?

10.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-

POINT NO.1:-  In affirmative

POINT NO.2:-  Partly affirmative

POINT NO.3:-  As per the final order

 for the following:

REASONS

11.    POINT NO.1:-  The complainant (PW.1) and opposite party No.2 (RW.1) have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings, in the affidavits filed in the form of their evidence in chief. 

12.    To prove that, the amount of Rs.699/- has been credited to the account of opposite party No.1, opposite party No.2 – Bank has produced EX.R.1 the mail addressed by Bank support team.  In which it appears that, “the said transaction is successful and the funds have been remitted to the merchant’s account”.  It is the contention of the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 that, the amount of Rs.699/- has been duly debited from the complainant account and duly credited to the opposite party No.1 account.  Further the Bank support team already confirmed that, the said transaction was successful and the funds have been remitted to the merchant’s account. 

13.    It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that, on 29.11.2019 the complainant had raised complaint with opposite party No.1 that payment been done, for that opposite party No.1 on 30.11.2019 replied that, payment was still not received.  Further again on 04.01.2020 the complainant had raised a complaint with opposite party No.1 for that also opposite party No.1 had replied that, payment has not been reflected in their account.  Further the complainant has produced an email correspondence sent by payU Bank Support stating that, the transaction was successful.

14.    Further the complainant has produced bank account particulars in which also it is shown that, on 25.11.2019 a sum of Rs.699/- has been debited from his account and the same has not been again credited to his account.  Certainly if it was wrongly debited then it could have been credited again to the account of the complainant.  This being the fact, on 20.01.2020 also opposite party No.1 had sent an email vide Ex.P.4 stating that, the payment which complainant had made for opposite party No.1 pay later has not been received as per the transaction details.  Hence it appears that, opposite party No.1 had sent reminders without following the accurate transaction made, to have a wrongful gain.  Hence the act of opposite party No.1 amounts to deficiency of service within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  Accordingly we answer this point in affirmative.

15.    POINT NO.2:-     The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from opposite parties.  We feel since opposite party No.2 had established with regard to the debit been made from the account of the complainant, opposite party No.2 is not held responsible for the email sent by the opposite party No.1.  We feel for the wrong intimation sent to complainant to pay further more caused hurt to the complainant.  Further the act of the opposite party No.1 amounts to deficiency of service in claiming further amount to have a wrongful gain.  Hence the opposite party No.1 has to pay in all a sum of Rs.3,000/-.  Accordingly we answer this point party in affirmative.

16.    POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint is allowed in part.

The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant for the mental agony sustained and hurt caused. 

The opposite party No.1 shall comply the order within 30 days.   In case, the opposite party No.1 fails to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount of Rs.3,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stands disposed-off in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 09^th Day of MAY 2023)                                             

• RAJU K.S)                            (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•  

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainant side:

SRI. Afthab Sayyad, the complainant (PW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of her evidence in chief.

Documents got marked for complainant side:

1. Application U/s 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act – Ex.P.1
2. Computer downloaded Flip cart mobile application screenshot – EX.P.2.
3. Computer downloaded copy of tax invoice dt.21.10.2019 – EX.P.3
4. Copy of the email correspondence – Ex.P.4

Witness examined for the opposite party No.1 side: 

- NIL -

Documents got marked for the Opposite Party No.1 side:

- NIL -

Witness examined for the opposite party No.2 side: 

Sri. Harish H.T, Manager in opposite party No.2 - Bank (RW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.

Documents got marked for the Opposite Party No.2 side:

1. Computer downloaded email communication received by R2 bank – Ex.R.1.

• RAJU K.S)                            (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•