District consumer panel imposes fine of Rs 50K on Facebook, retailer for not delivering online order
Orders them to refund Mohali resident Rs 2,535 plus pay Rs 30,000 in compensation, give Rs 20K to Tricity Bar body
3 min read
It was also ordered to the OPs to pay Rs 20,000 to the Tricity Consumer Courts' Bar Association. (File)Holding them accountable for adopting unfair trade practice, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Mohali has imposed a penalty of Rs 50,000 on “Facebook” and a kitchen rack manufacturing firm, “FIU Pumpy”, after a kitchen rack ordered online by a Mohali resident was not delivered to him despite multiple reminders sent to them by the complainant through email.
Kulwinder Singh of Mohali submitted in his petition that he is having a Facebook account. On seeing an advertisement of FIU Pumpy on the social networking website, he purchased a kitchen rack manufactured by FIU Pumpy through interface of Facebook.
Singh said that he made a payment of Rs 2,535 to FIU Pumpy on July 11, 2021, through payment gateway provided by Facebook. The order was to be delivered to the complainant within two weeks. However, the firm did not deliver the order and after waiting for some days, on August 8, 2021, he sent an email to the firm and the social networking site, regarding update of delivery of order. The firm and the Facebook informed him that the order has been shipped. Singh was again informed that the order is in transit and will be shipped to the destination country shortly. However, the order was not received by the complainant. The complainant then again sent an email but it bounced with the remarks that “the address not found”, which means that the email ID was closed by the firm and Facebook. Singh thus filed a complaint to the Consumer Commission.
The opposite parties (OPs) Facebook and FIU Pumpy did not appear and were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated June 6, 2022, and August 23, 2022.
The commission on hearing the matter held that “OP No.1 (Facebook) promotes the products on its user interface and fetch huge money by promoting/selling online products through its interface. The user like the complainant purchases the products from the website of OP No.1 and it is the liability of OP No.1 to ensure the delivery of products to the customers who pay the money for purchasing the products from its website.
“The allegations set out in the complaint go unrebutted and unopposed as the OPs (Facebook and FIU Pumpy) did not choose to contest the complaint. There is no reason to discard or disbelieve the ex-parte evidence adduced by the complainant. The complainant filed his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint which remained unopposed. It stands proved that the OPs committed unfair trade practice by not delivering the product to the complainant after receipt of the amount. We are of the view that in order to curb such type of malpractice, exemplary cost is to be imposed upon the OPs so that interest of gullible consumers is protected and they are saved from this type of unfair trade practice by the OPs.”
The commission thus allowing the complaint directed Facebook and FIU Pumpy to refund an amount of Rs 2,535, along with a compensation of Rs 30,000 to the complainant for unfair trade practice, mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.
It was also ordered to the OPs to pay Rs 20,000 to the Tricity Consumer Courts’ Bar Association.
You May Like
Photos
