BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.316 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 13.08.2019

      Date of Decision: 19.05.2023

Bharat Puri S/o Sh. Ramesh Puri, Resident of House No.717, Guru Gobind Singh Avenue, Jalandhar City-144009.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       SARB Multiplex, Amritsar Bye Pass Road, Near Transport      Nagar, Industrial Area, Jalandhar-144004 through its Authorized    Representative.

2.       Book My Show, Bigtree Entertainment Private Ltd., Ground   Floor, Wajeda House, Gulmohar Cross Road No.7, Juhu Scheme,          Mumbai, Maharashtra through its Authorized Representative.

3.       Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Electronics       Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       None for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Baljinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.

                   Sh. Ajay Kaushik, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.

                   OP No.3 exparte.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainants, wherein it is alleged that the complainant purchased a Movie Tickets from the OPs vide Booking ID 422100337789 Dated: 30.07.2019, Amount Paid Rs.684.80/-. The total Price of the Movie Tickets was shown to be Rs.800/-which was sold to the complainant and the price of the Movie Tickets was inclusive of all taxes. However, OPs charged an amount of Rs.129.80/- as Internet Handling Fee and Rs.5 Other Items i.e. Total Charged price from the complainant is Rs.684.80/- (Rs.800 Movie Tickets + Rs.129.80 Internet Handling Fee + Rs.5 Other Items – Rs.250 Discount). The payment of the said item was paid by the complainant through online. The OPs charged extra Internet Handling Fee Rs.129.80/- is illegal and not authorized by the government or the Reserve Bank of India. According to the IT Act 6A (3) section, digital service providers are not allowed to charge such a fee without permission. If service provider to collect, retain and appropriate service charges from the Customer then firstly they need permission from the RBI. Moreover, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has also not given any permission to charge customers over and above the ticket rates so ‘Online portals aren't supposed to charge anything other than the ticket fare,’ As per RBI's merchant discount rate (MDR) policy does not allow Internet handling fees to be passed on to the customer. RBI states that ‘merchants are required to pay this fee to the banks for online transactions.’ The RBI's also said that the internet usage fee was a violation of the RBI's Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) regulations. MDR is a payment gateway fee paid by the merchant to the bank for accepting customer payments via debit or credit cards. The RBI said that the fee has to be paid to banks by merchants for online transactions. The Book My Show is levying internet charging fees on it's users which is completely baseless and unnecessary for the user to pay as it the duty of the merchant to pay to the bank against every transaction made by customers using a credit or debit card as per MDR regulations. It is a gross violation of the central bank's Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) regulations. The Price of any article/Services always include all taxes including GST so a retailer cannot charge the price over and above the same but Opposite parties has charged an excessive amount to the tune of Rs.129.80/-as Internet Handling Fees from the complainant in an illegal manner. That the complainant resisted to the above after seeing the bill but the OPs said that one's bill been made then complainant has to pay the net payable amount. The OP has charged the excessive amount on the pretext of ‘Internet Handling Fees’ not only from the complainant but the said charges are also being levied from all the customers illegally and the same amounts to unfair trade practice and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the amount of Internet Handling Fees illegally charged i.e. Rs.129.80/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of payment till the date of realization. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite elapsing of 30 days, notice sent to OP No.3 not received back and ultimately OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form nor under the law. Rather the complaint is infructuous. It is further averred that the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of proper party. The complaint is false and frivolous to the knowledge of the OP No.1. The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and the complainant is barred by his own act, conduct, omissions and commissions to file the present complaint. The complaint without cause of action is barred by law. It is further averred that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands. It is further averred that complainant is trying to harass and defame the answering OP No.1 by filing present complaint. It is pertinent to mention that the SARB Multiplex, OP No.1, is a well known place in Jalandhar and nearby areas where people come to watch movies and to spend quality time with their family and friends. The OP No.1 sells its movie ticket through multiple mediums and OP No.2 is one of them. The customer(s), who wish to watch movie, chooses the mode and platform to buy the movie tickets of OP No.1 out of their own free will and are not under any compulsion to buy the movie ticket (s) from a specific platform or service provider. The OP No.2 is an online platform which provides online service thereby offering the interested customer to avail its service by online purchasing the movie tickets. The OP No.2 is also offering and selling the movie tickets of the daily movie shows offered by the replying respondent. It is pertinent to mention here that the replying respondent, i.e. OP No.1, is also offering and selling its movie tickets through the OP No.2 and any other charges or discounts given by OP No.2 to the customer is solely at its discretion and OP No.1 has no concern with the said charges or discounts. The charging of any sort of extra amount or offering any kind of discount, on the movie tickets of OP No.1 sold online by the OP No.2, is the sole concern and discretion of OP No.2. Furthermore, as alleged in the present complaint the internet handling fees charged by the OP No.2 and even discount given by them is not charged and offered by the OP No.1, rather as stated it is the sole concern and discretion of OP No.2. Moreover, to make it more clear, any kind of extra charges or discounts offered by any service provider, like OP No.2, to their customer are between both of them, OP No.1 has no concern in any many whatsoever with such charges or discounts offered. As such the OP No.1 has no concern with the complaint filed by the complainant, and complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint totally based on surmises and conjectures just in order to harass and defame the OP No.1 for the reasons best known to the complainant. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the movie tickets by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the OP No.2, through website "bookmyshow.com", which is an entertainment ticketing portal owned and operated by Big Tree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., a private limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956. The OP No.2 is inter alia engaged in the business of reservation and sale of tickets for cinemas, plays, concerts, sports events, festivals, etc, through their online computerized system. The OP No.2 is one of the largest online portals in India having presence in over 600 cities. It is further averred that at the outset, the OP No. 2 denies all and every allegation made in the Complaint against OP No. 2. Nothing should be deemed to be admitted unless specifically admitted by the OP No.2 hereinafter. It is further averred that the instant Complaint has been preferred on the misconceived notion that the fee charged by the OP No.2 (internet handling fees) is an unfair trade practice under Section 2 (r) of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 ("CP Act"). It is submitted that the complaint lacks basic particulars and details required to substantiate the allegations made therein. In the instant case, the Complainant has admitted availing of the services provided by the OP No.2 but evidently lacks the willingness to pay for the same. It is further averred that the other allegation of the Complainant of the said charge being made by the Opposite party No.2 without the authorization of the reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "RBI") and Ministry of Electronics and information Technology (hereinafter referred to as "MEIT") is equally erroneous and frivolous. This is demonstrated from the documents filed by the Complainant itself. Before adverting to the contents of the Complaint in seriatim, it is reiterated that the contents of the said complaint are devoid of any merits, frivolous and have no basis either in fact or law. Therefore, the instant Complaint deserves to be dismissed.

4.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

5.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs only as none has appeared on behalf of the complainant and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the OP No.1 and OP No.2 very minutely.  

7.                The complainant has alleged that he had purchased a Movie Tickets from the OP vide Booking ID 422100337789 amount paid was Rs.684.80/-. He has alleged that the OP has charged amount of Rs.800/- and the amount of Rs.129.80 was charged as Internet Handling Fee and Rs.5/- other items i.e. Total charged price from the complainant was Rs.684.80/-. He has alleged that the OPs cannot charge extra internet handling fee of Rs.129.80 and he has referred in his complaint the provision of IT Act Section 6A (3), which provides the digital service providers are not allowed to charge such a fee without permission. He has also referred the RBI Guidelines. He has proved on record the ticket Ex.C-1 which shows that the amount of Rs.684.80 was charged.

8.                The OPs on the other hand denied the illegality and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. It has been alleged by the OPs that the OPs are charging the internet handling fee, which are permissible as these are for any voluntary availing of service by any person interested to avail of the service. There is no compulsion or forcible enforcement of such availing of service. The OPs have relied upon the observation of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in which the Hon’ble Bombay High Court declared the online computerized system as a legitimate business activity. Similarly, the OPs have relied upon the observation of Hon’ble Hyderabad High Court. The OPs have also alleged that the MDR (Merchant Discount Rates) charge as alleged by complainant and the handling fee are not the same thing rather these are different thing.

9.                It is not disputed that the OP No.3 is the custodian of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The present complaint is relating to the excessive charges levied by the e-Commerce platform i.e. OP No.2 as an internet handling fee in addition to tickets charges and the OP No.1 is a company, which is engaged in the business of providing the films to its pattern and it operates as a Multiplex Cinema. The main grouse of the complainant is against the OP No.2, who has charged Rs.129.80/- as internet handling fee. It is not disputed that the OP No.2 has not forced the complainant to avail the services of OP No.2 for booking the tickets through ecommerce. It is also not disputed that the OP No.2 is the service provider and services can be availed only if one pays the consideration/fee for their services. Section-2 (R) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with the unfair trade practice, which is to be proved by the complainant. It says that for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, one adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive trade practice i.e. unfair trade practice. The e-commerce platform, which has been adopted by the OP No.2, nowhere shows the unfair trade practice. It was the will of the complainant to avail the advantageous services offered by the OP No.2 for their own convenience. The complainant has not produced on record any guidelines of the RBI nor has produced on record the MDR regulations which have been relied upon by the complainant in para No.7 of his complaint. There are guidelines and there is no order to show that internet handling charges cannot be charged by the OP No.2 or the same is violative of any guidelines. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in a case titled as ‘Big Tree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and other’ alongwith other petitions that the sale of cinema ticket by an online computerized system is a legitimate business, activity carried out by the OP No.2. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court had stayed the Govt. order directing against the levy of additional charges for online computerized ticket sale. This order has been proved by the OP No.2 as Ex.OP2/1. Similarly, the Hon’ble Hyderabad High Court has suspended the action taken by the State Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana for a compulsory provision of online ticketing service by one entity at a fixed specified rate. This order has been proved as Ex.OP2/2. The complainant has not produced on record any order of the Hon'ble High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court or Hon'ble National Commission vide which the order passed by the Govt. has been declared valid or the Pb. Govt. has put any restriction or levied any restriction on the levying of additional charges for online computerized ticket sale. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                             Jaswant Singh Dhillon                    Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

19.05.2023                              Member                                President