Haryana

Panchkula

CC/50/2021

SH ANIL KUMAR DATTA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ,CAR DEKHO .COM. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

31 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

Sh. Anil Kumar Datta # 943-A, Sector-7, Panchkula-134109

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

Cardekho.com, Plot No.48,49 opposite  EPFO Building, behind Hotel Taj Vivanta, Sector-44, Gurugram, Haryana-122003 through the Managing Director.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

                        Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member

For the Parties:   Smt.Amresh Datta, Authorised Representative of complainant.

                        OP already ex-parte vide order dated 10.11.2021.

ORDER

(Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant visiting the site of OP for purchase of a used car where a Swift car as put was sale by a user verified by the OP. On 20.12.2020, he selected this car i.e. Maruti Suzuki Swift, 2015 Model and having 30000km old with Chandigarh registration no.CH01BC9554. It is stated that on contacting the verified seller, who claimed to be an army personnel named Sh.Lakhwinder Singh took them into confidence by offering a test drive and that he stressed throughout that he is a verified seller on cardekho.com. The deal was settled at Rs.2,10,000/- and Rs.6,000/- was paid to the said Sh.Lakwinder Singh for booking charges on 21.12.2020 through his UPI ID, viz

2.             Notice was issued to the OP through registered post, which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OP; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OP, it was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 10.11.2021.

3.             To prove the case, the authorized representative of the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.             We have heard the authorized representative of the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file including synopsis filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5.             During arguments, the authorized representative of the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint contended that the complainant, keeping in view the reputation of the OP, visited its site i.e.

6.                The OP has preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent despite service of notice and accordingly, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10.11.2021 and thus, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.             We have perused Annexure C-1, wherein the alleged car bearing registration no.CH-01-BC-9554 was shown for sale at a price of Rs.2.1 lacs. Further, as per said Annexure C-1, it is found that the user i.e. the complainant was asked to look into the seller details. As per unrebutted contentions of the complainant, the alleged seller was a verified seller and thus, there was no occasion for the complainant to entertain any kind of the doubt or suspicion as to the correctness & genuineness of the credentials of the alleged verified seller. Since, the complainant confinded in OP, which had alleged the said seller to be verified seller on its site i.e. cardekho.com. No lapse or negligence can be attributed to the act of the complainant while making payment of Rs.6,000/-, Rs.21,600/- and Rs. 35,000/- as per Annexure C-2, C-3 & C-4. Further, no lapse can be attributed on the part of the complainant as he had brought the matter into the notice of bank as well as cyber crime as well as the OP vide Annexure C-5 & C-6. Though, there is no version of the OP in the shape of written statement, yet, we find an email conversation in the shape of the email(Annexure C-7) made with the complainant wherein the OP realizing its lapses and mistake has admitted that it had removed the said alleged seller from its website. However, the OP instead of conducting any detail inquiry to find as to how and who had succeeded in registering on its site, had asked the complainant to lodge the complaint against fraudster in the Police Station. Further, the OP has failed to share the particulars, if any, of the said fraudster with the Police. As per facts narrated above, it is found that the fraudster succeeded in getting himself registered on the website of the OP. It seems that the OP while registering a seller did not take necessary precaution and failed to make the proper checking of the credentials of the fraudster. It appears that the OP is engaged in its business operations and commercial transactions without putting in place a vibrant, robust and sound checking mechanism so as to prevent the fraudster from registration on its website.  

8.             In view of the aforesaid discussion, we may safely conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of the OP while delivering services to the complainant. Hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

9.             As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP:-

1. The OP is directed to make the payment of Rs.62,600/-(Rs.6000+21600+35000/-) as paid by the complainant and his friend alongwith interest @9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
2. The OP is directed to make the payment of Rs.10,000/-to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. The OP is further directed to make the payment of Rs.15,000/-as Punitive damages to the complainant. Since, the fraudster had succeeded in causing the wrongful laws to the complainant of the sum of Rs.62,600/- only because of the utter negligence and deficient services of the OP.
4. The OP is further directed to pay Rs.2,500/- on account of litigation charges.
5. As mentioned above the Op has been found lacking a proper and robust dynamic checking mechanism due to which the fraudster succeeded in getting registration on its website. Therefore, it is imperative to direct the OP to adopt and put in place a sound and dynamic checking mechanism system so as to prevent the entry of fraudster on its website. It is so necessary to prevent the repetition of such foul practice by the fraudster.                

10.            The OP shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OP failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced on:31.08.2022

        Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini      Satpal

                Member                     Member                  President

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                            Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini

                                               Member