A recent consumer forum decision by a Jodhpur district court, lays down another great principle as to jurisdiction in case of online e-commerce transactions. The complainant ‘Shumbham Modi‘ had purchased a tablet ZYNC Z 1000 from the INDIATIMES SHOPPING (RES-3) for a consideration of Rs. 9,330 vide invoice bill no. ZYNC/retail/2012-13/10087.
The payment was made through online payment from Karnatka Bank, Transaction Description 7/11/2012 paid at Jodhpur. Thereafter due to the dispute, the Complainant filed the Petition under Sec. 2 (1)(b)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 at Jodhpur only and not where the office of IndianTimes Shopping was situated at Delhi.

Basically Section 11 of Consumer protection Act, 1986 provides for jurisdiction of the District Forum as follows: 
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed ”does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

Now, as the consideration was paid to IndiaTimes Shopping at jodhpur through Karnatka Bank’s local branch, therefore the Cause of Action was assumed to have arisen within the Jurisdiction of Jodhpur consumer forum. And the complainant was able to convince the hon’ble members of the Forum that the jurisdiction in the matter lied with them only and complaint was accordingly accepted.
The judgment was delivered on 6th January 2014, despite the fact that respondents office was situated outside the city of Jodhpur. Copy of order can be downloaded here, whereby the court ordered refund of Rs 9330 (price of Tablet) and further sum of Rs 5,000 was ordered. And such action on behalf of individual consumer is commendable !
Complainant: Mr Shubham Modi, BBA LLB 4th Year, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CENTRAL MUMBAI DISTRICT.
Complaint Case No. CC/11/212
Mr.Ashok Pritamdas Sahani
Sion (East) , Mumbai-400 022             ………..Complainant
-Versus-
The Chief Executive Officer
Hathway Cable and Datacom Limited
Lower Parel(West), Mumbai 400013  …………Opp.Party
ORDER
Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President
1) The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he is subscriber of O.P’s broadband internet services having two accounts bearing No.97075 and 460055. He is using the service of the O.P. since last five years. Both the accounts are prepaid. The complainant is the owner a laptop of Sony Vaio make bearing model No.VGNNR240E. He was using the said laptop at his residence connected with O.Ps broadband internet service bearing account No.460055. On 5th June, 2011, there was heavy rain and lightening in the city of Mumbai. As a precautionary measure, power connection was removed from the laptop and laptop was connected to the modem of O.P. The modem connected with account No.460055 became completely disfunctional and the other modem with account No.97075
connected with PC had some problems. The laptop also stopped working from 5th June, 2011 as the cable wire was struck by lightening. The complainant lodged complaint for both the defects with the O.P. bearing complaint No.5718569 dated 7th June, 2011 and 5727367 dated 9th June, 2011. The representative of the O.P. Mr.Rajesh visited the complainant and informed that modem of account No.460055 had been completely destroyed due to lightening and promised to replace by new modem. The complainant showed his laptop to his engineer who told that mother board of his laptop is completely destroyed due to the surge of electricity from the modem into laptop. The defect in other internet account also was not rectified. The modem of account No.460055 was not replaced with new modem. The complainant was crippled without internet services. He was not able to access any email. Therefore, he sent legal notice dated 13th June, 2011 calling upon to rectify the internet line and replace the modem. The O.P. was also informed about the loss of laptop. The said notice was received by the O.P. On 15th June, 2011 representative of the O.P. rectified the problem of internet line of account No.97075 and on 22nd June, 2011 old modem of account No.460055 was replaced.
2) The laptop could not be repaired as the parts and mother board are not available in India. It was the duty of the O.P. to caution their clients to unplug the modem from the computer as surge of electricity can take place through their modem at the time of lightening. The complainant suffered loss to his laptop worth Rs.68,000/-. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint for the recovery of amount of Rs.68,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. He has also claimed compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation.
3) The O.P. appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that as per contract it is necessary to refer the dispute to the Arbitration. Therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction. The complainant approached the O.P. in the year 2005-06 for broadband internet service connection and the internet connection was given to him. On 5th June, 2011, due to heavy rain and lightening the modem provided by the O.P. was damaged. The complainant lodged complaint on 7th June, 2011. After checking, it was found that modem was faulty. The complainant again lodged two complaints dated 8th June, 2011 and 9th June, 2011. The same was resolved on 9th June, 2011. The modem was replaced on 22nd June, 2011 free of cost. It was a regular practice of the O.P. to provide welcome letter to their new customer. The same is duly acknowledged by the customers. As per the said letter, all the customers are requested to disconnect the LAN cable from their PCs while not in use especially during rains and lightening. The cable modem does not suffer from any lapse. However, lightening can strike any cable. The O.P. is not aware if the complainant was using the laptop as alleged for internet services. The complainant is the customer since last five years of this O.P. He is well aware about the precautionary measures. The complaint of the complainant was resolved and one Mamta Sahani, mother of the complainant signed customer call report dated 15th June, 2011 and 22nd June, 2011 agreeing that the complaint has been resolved. The O.P. is sending precautionary message in the form of SMS and emails since the year-2003 to all the clients regularly. The complainant is the regular customer of the O.P. since the last five years and he has received the message of the O.P. It is submitted that in any event any cautious person would remove all electric wires connecting to any kind of electronic device in extreme weather especially that of heavy rains and lightening. Therefore, this O.P. is not liable to pay any kind of damage.
4) After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.
Points                              Findings
1) Whether there is deficiency in service ? Yes
2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed ? Partly Yes
3) What Order ? As per final order
REASONS
5) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- There is no dispute that the complainant is having two accounts of broadband internet services of the O.P. bearing No.97075 and 460055 since last five years. It is also not disputed that on 5th June, 2011 there was heavy rains and lightening in the city of Mumbai.
According to the O.P., on the complaint of the complainant representative of the O.P. visited the complainant and found that there was problem in modem and the modem was replaced. The O.P. has denied the damage to the laptop due to surge of electricity from the modem line into laptop. From the admission of the O.P. in the written statement and affidavit of evidence, it is clear that the LAN and modem was damaged due to heavy rains and lightening in the city. The modem was replaced by the O.P. According to the complainant, his laptop was damaged due to the surge of electricity from the modem LAN into the laptop. The evidence of the O.P.’s witness is not sure to show that laptop can not be damaged due to surge of electricity from the modem LAN. On the other hand, the witness of the complainant has specifically stated that the laptop of the complainant was damaged due to surge of electricity from the modem LAN. The witness examined by the O.P. and complainant are expert. The witness of the O.P. has not denied the possibility of damage to the laptop due to surge of electricity hrough the modem LAN and witness of the complainant has supported the averments of the complainant. Therefore, we accept that the Laptop was damaged due to surge of electricity though modem LAN. As discussed above, there is no dispute that there was heavy rain and lightening in the city on 5th June, 2011. The O.P. is the service provider of the internet services. The complainant is the regular prepaid customer. Therefore, it was necessary for the O.P. to take proper precaution so that electronic device of their customers should not damaged. Due to failure of the O.P. the complainant suffered damage to his laptop. Therefore, the O.P. is liable to compensate it to the complainant.
6) According to the O.P. there is no proper proof showing the damage of Rs.68,000/-. The O.P. has not disputed that the complainant is the regular customer since last five years. According to the complainant, he was using his laptop for internet connection. The laptop is old one. The complainant has not produced the bill of purchase of laptop. However, the laptop is old one therefore even though the complainant could not produce the bill still his claim can not be rejected in toto. According to the complainant, his laptop is worth Rs.68,000/-. Therefore, he has claimed compensation of Rs.68,000/-. The claim of the complainant is for the price of new laptop. Admittedly, the complainant was using it for more than five years. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the depreciation value of the laptop. Considering the use of five years, we think depreciation value of the laptop should be 50% i.e. Rs.34,000/-. The O.P. is liable to compensate it to the complainant. The complainant has requested the O.P. to compensate his loss but the O.P. failed. The complainant issued notice but the same was not replied by the O.P. Inspite of several requests, the O.P. failed to compensate the loss thereby complainant suffered from mental agony and harassment.
Hence, the O.P. is liable to pay compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment amounting to Rs.10,000/-. The complainant is also entitled for the cost of litigation. We think cost of Rs.5,000/- will suffice the purpose. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
O R D E R
1) Complaint is partly allowed.
2) The O.P. is directed to pay Rs.34,000/- (Rs.Thirty Four Thousand Only) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. from 7th October, 2011 till realization.
3) The O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand Only) to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony and harassment.
4) The O.P. is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousand Only) to the complainant towards the cost of this litigation.
5) The above order shall be complied with within a period of one month from today.
6) Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.
Pronounced
Dated 26th February, 2014
[HON’ABLE MR. B.S.WASEKAR]
PRESIDENT
[HON’ABLE MR. H.K.BHAISE]
MEMBER

In 2007, Thane District Forum had ordered in a property dispute case that the respondents builder-developers Kuldeep Oswal and Gyanchand K Sancheti together should collect the pending Rs 6 lakh from the complainants, namely Smita Chandresh Sawla and Vibha Nilesh Shah (residents of Borivili), for the flats in Oswal Empire building here and get it registered, and also give the completion certificate of M-2 building to the complainants. Further, asking the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs 2,000 towards legal expenses.
The Forum then ordered that the respondents should individually make a payment of Rs 10,000 to complainants within two months of the order or else an additional sum of Rs 20,000 will be payable with interest at 9 percent. But as the respondents failed to comply with the orders of the Forum and evaded responding to the follow up by the complainants, they filed the present criminal complaint following which the court now decided to fine them with Rs 10,000 individually.
Taking a serious view of the non compliance of its earlier order, the Thane District Consumer Redressal Forum (TDCRF) invoked its judicial powers under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and imposed a penalty of Rs 10,000 each on two builders here failing which they will have to undergo 3 months imprisonment, that the penalty be paid within flat three days else the duo will be imprisoned.

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VII, SHEIKH SARAI, NEW DELHI-110017

Complaint No. DF. VII/774/2009

In the matter of :
Sh. Manish Marwah & Mukesh Marwah
R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110 022.  ….Complainant
Versus
1. M/s The Mobilestore Limited, New Delhi. ….Opposite Party-I
2. Citi Bank, NA, Jeevan Bharti Building, New Delhi-110001.
Also: Customer Care Centre at Delhi Of Citi Bank. ….Opposite Party-II
3. HSBC Bank, Sector-18 Noida. UP.  ….Opposite Party-III

O R D E R

(HARSHALI KAUR, MEMBER)
Complainant No. 1 has been issued Credit Card No. 4385-8715-6799-0016 (herein after referred to as Primary Card) and Complainant No. 2, held add – on Card No. 4385-8715-6799-0107 (herein after referred to add – on card) of the O.P-II.
The Complainant’s were admittedly using a Primary and an add – on card. It is alleged by the Complainant NO. 2 that on 12.6.09, at around 8 P.M. the add – on card alongwith the Complainant’s wallet, papers, license, debit and Credit Cards went missing. At 9.22 PM. he got an intimation that on his add – on card three transactions were held at O.P-I mobile store which were for Rs. 12,419/-, Rs. 9229/-, and Rs. 10,499/-. On 13.6.09 Complainant No. 2 informed O.P-II to block the add – on card, disputing the said transactions. NCR No. 1042/2009 was also registered on 14.6.09.
The Complainant’s allege that the Credit Card was misused by some unknown person at the showroom of O.P-I. The Complainant registered complaints of the missing Credit Cards on the customer care of O.P-II who are arrayed as O.P-III. They got the matter investigated through Sharma Investigation. The Complainant’s alleged that when O.P-I produced the transaction slips it was clearly visible that the signatures on all 4 merchant Credit Card slips had shown different initials which were issued by O.P-I and differed with signatures of the card holders on the back of the Credit Card, thereby showing that O.P-I was negligent and willfully allowed the impostors to misuse cards belonging to the Complainant’s. The Complainant’s also allege that the copy of ID proof submitted by the said unlawful purchasers to O.P-I which O.P-I has produced, clearly shows that the signature of the said ID proof does not match the signatures on the merchant Credit Card slips showing negligence on the part of O.P-I. Also the unlawful person who purchased 4 mobiles in one go, did not alarm the O.P-I enough to verify the credentials of the person, which is their moral legal duty which according to the Complainant goes to show that O.P-I was mindful of the transaction being unlawful. So far as O.P-II and O.P-III, are concerned, the Complainant alleges that the O.P.’s have unlawfully debited the accounts of the Complainant’s with heavy charges and interests as the transactions were not made by the Complainant’s.
The Complainant’s getting no respite for their grievances sent a legal notice demanding recovery of losses and damages for problems suffered by them to the O.P.’s on 28.8.09. Getting no reply to the notice from the O.P.’s the Complainant’s filed the present complaint U/s 12, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 5.10.2009 alleging deficiency-in-service and unfair-trade-practice causing monetary loss, physical and mental harassment to the Complainant’s and prayed for directions to the O.P.’s to write off and rectify the accounts of the Complainant No. 1 Manish Marwahs debit balance regarding the unlawful transaction, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from each O.P. towards compensation for physical and mental agony and Rs. 50,000/- as punitive damages from each O.P. and any other order deemed fit by the Forum.
The complaint was dismissed for default on 20.10.09 due to non-appearance of the Complainant’s by this Forum but restored later on their application vide order dated 11.11.09 to its original number notice was issued to O.P-I, O.P-II and O.P-III who filed their respective replies. Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit were filed by the Complainant and then the O.P.’s filed their respective evidence. Written Argument were also filed by the Complainant and O.P-II, O.P-III. O.P-I however did not file Written Argument.
We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and O.P-II and O.P-III also presented their case orally before this Forum. O.P-I did not appear despite issuing notice intimating date of Final Argument.
O.P-I in their evidence filed by way of affidavit of Sh. Prashant Kumar Sigh, Store Manager, stated that the Complainant’s have filed a complaint which is baseless and false and that the transaction done with the Credit Card on 12.6.09 was valid and authorised by the respective banks i.e., O.P-II and O.P-III and O.P-I merely followed the due procedures set down by the respective banks and it was the primary duty of the Complainant’s themselves to block the cards after realising that their wallet had been missing but O.P-II and O.P-III were unable to block the card in time which shows that it could be due to negligence of O.P-II and O.P-III and that O.P-I is not liable in any way. He further stated that the signature on the Credit Card and slips of shopping matched and valid copy of driving licence of the purchaser had also been taken at time of sale as per instructions and procedure prescribed by O.P-II and O.P-III and since there were no instruction from O.P-II or O.P-III to verify the document and addresses of any purchasers at time of shopping with the Credit Card nor were there any rules for the same, the transaction was completed by the O.P-I after due verification. Further, a person who has a valid Credit Card can do as much shopping and Complainant’s averments contrary to the same have no bearing on the case and therefore the complaint is vexatious and false and is liable to be dismissed.
In the affidavit filed by Sh. Jagdish Salwan, for O.P-II, it is stated that the Complainant’s have failed to prove deficiency-in-service on the part of O.P-II and no cause of action has arisen between the Complainant’s and O.P-II. As per policy followed by O.P-II bank in cases of loss or damage of Credit Card, the card account is blocked on receipt of information from the card member and the bank assumes liability thereon. Since the transactions mentioned in the complaint were prior to any receipt of information of loss / theft of the Credit Card in question by O.P-II no liability can be fastened on O.P-II. The Complainant’s failed to inform O.P-II immediately after the card was lost / stolen and only got the card blocked after they received the confirmation call from the personnel of Fraud Detection Team of O.P-II with always calls to confirm transactions, when there are continuous transactions from a card account of any member to prevent cases of fraud and when there is a valid transaction from the Credit Card O.P-II is obliged to pay the acquiring bank on receipt of demand of payment from the acquiring bank for said transactions.
Sh. Piyush Tiwari, Principal officer of the O.P-III bank filed evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of O.P-III stating that admittedly the Complainant was issued a Credit Card by O.P-III alongwith an add – on card and he agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the Credit Card Service Guide which was sent to the Complainant and which states that in case of a lost Credit Card the card holder would immediately report the occurrence on the emergency assistance Help Line in writing or calling in the Customer Care Service Centre and that the card holder would not be liable for any transactions made on Credit Card only after reporting the loss / theft / misuse to the bank. In the present Complaint however the said card was allegedly stolen on 12.6.09 at 8.00 P.M. but O.P-III was intimated about the loss of address on card on 12.6.09 at 23.33.59 hrs. as per Ex O.P-III/C wrongly mentioned in the affidavit as 21.03.59 hrs. The disputed transactions were made prior to the time of intimation of loss and hence O.P-III is not liable for said transaction. The Complainant neither sent any written confirmation non an FIR, mandatory requirements as per the Credit Card holders agreement. O.P-III have stated that the present complaint does not constitute, any deficiency-in-service or unfair-trade-practice as contemplated U/S 2 (i) (f) (g) and (r) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against O.P-III and deserved to be dismissed on grounds of being beyond the scope of the Act.
We have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions of the parties and carefully perused the document placed on record.
On merit, we find sufficient force in the complaint filed on 15.10.09 wherein the Complainant No. 2 lost his wallet and thereby lost Credit Cards, debit cards, licence and pan card as is evident from the FIR that was registered on 14.6.09 at 3.00 P.M. at the police station R.K.Puram, New Delhi. The Complainant lost his wallet by his own admission on 12.6.09 at 8.00 P.M. The Complainant No. 1, the primary card holder on 15.6.09 filed a customer dispute Form for the disputed transaction of Rs. 23,209/- made by the lost Credit Card issued by O.P-III. Simultaneously, 3 other disputed transactions took place with another of the stolen Credit Cards issued by O.P-II amounting to Rs. 12,419/- Rs. 10,499/- and Rs. 9229/-. The Complainant has testified that O.P-I was deliberately negligent and even though both the Complainant’s have not made the purchase of the mobile phones from O.P-I, O.P-I without verifying the ID of the person purchasing the mobile phones, allowed the transaction which O.P-II and O.P-III banks also approved despite the calls made by the Complainant to inform them regarding the stolen wallet carrying the add – on card. So far as the liability of O.P-I is concerned, there is no doubt that they did not act as expected of a prudent man. O.P-I allowed purchase of 3 mobile phones to an individual on the Credit Card in question without due care and caution. The initials on the merchant slips purported to by Mukesh Sharma – the Complainant No. 2 do not match when viewed by one with naked eye, O.P-I have not even filed any proof to substantiate that they verified the identity of the person making purchases of 4 mobile phones in one go at 20:40:22; 20:41:49; 20:43:08, 20:44:45; i.e., within less than 5 minutes on 12.6.09 and succeeds in 3 transactions. It could be possible either due to collusion between the merchant and the buyer or due to negligence on the part of the merchant i.e., O.P-I who was motivated to sell his merchandise without caring to know and verify the whereabouts of the customer.
In the instant case we find that O.P-I has not acted diligently and unwittingly become a privy to the fraud being played by the person who purchased on the Credit Card belonging to Complainant No. 2. Hence, O.P-I can be held guilty of deficiency-in-service as defined by Clause (g) read with Clause (o) of Sub Clause (i) of Section 2 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Case as against O.P-II and O.P-III stands on different footing. According to the Complainant’s own case Complainant No. 2 lost his wallet on 12.6.09 at 8.00 P.M. and O.P-III are informed at 21:03:59 i.e. 9.04 P.M. one hour after the loss of the wallet. The purchases of Mobiles took place between 8.40 to 8.45 P.M. as evident from the merchant slips filed on record. Thus, the loss of the Credit Card in question is reported to O.P-III only after the disputed transaction had taken place. As per Annexure A filed by O.P-III every Credit Card is identified with Unique ID No. and when the bank is informed of the loss of a Credit Card they block further transactions on the said card, which O.P-III claim to have done in this case, to prevent any further transactions on the Credit Card in question. It is pleaded by O.P-III that such a card cannot be re-opened, a fresh card is issued provided the Credit Card holder requests for the same, subject to Credit Card holder to pay the entire standing liability including the one made prior to the intimation of loss of the card. It is further contented by O.P-III that the Complainant’s failed to pay outstanding amount of Rs. 41,049.10 P as due on 14.4.10 as per the statement of account Ex O.P W 3/B, and thus has become a non-performing Asset. Relying upon Clause 27 of the Card Member Agreement O.P-II have denied their liability for any deficiency-in-service or Unfair-Trade-Practice and we fully feel convinced, in the facts and circumstances of the case, O.P-II and O.P-III have promptly acted on the complaint of the Complainant’s and did whatever was required of them in preventing further misuse of the lost Credit Card of the Complainant’s. However, we find charging of interest on the amount of “disputed transactions” Unfair on their part especially when it is admitted that Credit Card in question was used by an unauthorised person and the amount in dispute is the liability of O.P-I as per their own claim that due to the negligence of O.P-I the Complainant incurred the alleged loss of Rs. 23,209/- prior to intimation to O.P-III bank about the loss of said Credit Card as one of the disputed transactions. The sole grievance against them as alleged by the Complainant is that O.P-II and O.P-III have been charging heavy interest on the disputed amount that they be directed to write off.
In this regard we are of the considered view that O.P-II and O.P-III though cannot be held liable for any deficiency-in-service, yet the Complainant’s are entitled to pay the outstanding as are receivable from O.P-I who in all fairness are liable to make good, the loss suffered by the Complainant’s due to their negligence.
Accordingly, allowing the complaint we direct O.P-I to pay a sum of Rs. 32,147/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand One Hundred Forty Seven Only) to the Complainant’s within thirty days of the receipt of copy of this order and the Complainant’s shall then pay to O.P-II and O.P-III the said amount against outstanding dues, where after O.P-II and O.P-III shall write off the amount without claiming any interest thereon and if requested by the Complainant’s shall restore the Credit Cards blocked on account of the loss of add – on card.
O.P-I shall also pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment including cost of litigation.
Order be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order.

• Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
• File, thereafter, be consigned to Record Room.

Order Pronounced on 7th February, 2014.
(Smt. HARSHALI KAUR)       (Shri S.K.SARVARIA)
               MEMBER                            PRESIDENT