ORDER

HON’BLE ANANDA KUMAR TIWARI

(JUDICIAL MEMBER)

Final Order/Judgement

This appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 2019) is preferred impeaching the final order/judgement dated 05/05/2022 passed by Hon’ble District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Baruipur (hereinafter referred to as Hon’ble District Commission) in Complaint Case No CC/105/2021. It is the case of the Appellant that the Respondent herein being the complainant filed CC/105/2021 before Hon’ble District Commission against the Opposite party (Appellant herein) and matter was heard ex-parte and final order was passed on 05/05/2022. It is stated that the Appellant came to know about the impugned order through E-mail from the Counsel of the respondent on 17/05/2022.

The further case of the Appellant is that the Appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 1 floor, 29 Dariyaganj, Netaji Subhas Marg, Delhi-110002 and it runs an online B2B (business to business) marketplace and provides access to the website namely www.Indiamart.com to facilitate interaction between buyers and suppliers of products and service. It is further stated that the Appellant also facilitates a technology based platform to other service provider like payment of facilitators i.e. pay with Indiamart as well so that they can advertise and provide their service to the general public.

It is stated that sometimes in September,2020 the Respondent through the website of the Appellant contacted the supplier namely Sk. Hasanujjaman of Today Retail having its address at E- 265, Baishnab Ghata, Patuli, Kolkata-700094, West Bengal for supply of different oils of Fortune brand and as per the agreement between the Respondent and supplier, the Respondent agreed to pay 50% of the total sale consideration i.e. Rs.1,00,000/-to the supplier. It is stated that it was the Respondent who insisted on paying through the Pay with Indiamart (PWIM) link available on the Website to remit the sale consideration and accordingly on 04/10/2020 the Respondent remitted said amount to the supplier. It is stated that as per the averments made in the complaint the arrangement/deal between the Respondent and Supplier was cancelled on 04/10/2020 subsequent to which the Respondent instead of contacting the supplier for refund of the amount sent e-mails to the Appellant and in response it was clarified by the Appellant vide e-mail dated 15/10/2020 that said amount had been settled into the supplier’s account on the same day and the Respondent was requested to contact the supplier in case of any dispute.

It is stated that the Respondent continued to harass the Appellant by sending frivolous e- mails and the Appellant vide e-mail dated 23/10/2020 clarified that the Appellant is only a match making platform where its role is limited to connecting prospective buyers and sellers. It is further stated that ultimately on 29/10/2020 a frivolous and baseless legal notice was sent by Respondent’s Advocate to the Appellant’s corporate address requesting for alleged refund of the said amount though the same was never received by the Appellant and was only discovered upon receipt of the complaint and the documents annexed thereto.

The further case of the Appellant is that on 27/09/2021, Hon’ble District Commission issued notices which were served only to the Appellant’s corporate address and not in its registered address and thereafter Hon’ble District Commission on 16/11/2021 allowed time to the Appellant to file written version and upon going through the order dated 10/12/2021, the Appellant was shocked to find that Hon’ble District Commission stated that statutory period for filing the written version had elapsed and the complainant shall proceed ex-parte notwithstanding the fact that the 30 days period for filing the written versio