E-COMMERCE SECTOR AND CONSUMER JUSTICE

 

E-COMMERCE SECTOR AND CONSUMER JUSTICE

As per the official statistics and reports, the e-commerce sector in India was

worth USD 38.5 billion in 2017 and is expected to be worth about USD 200

billion in 2020. This is due to the increase in the number of people who

have internet – there were over 566 million internet users at the end of 2018

and the number is expected to be over 627 million at the end of 2019.

Multiple government initiatives, such as Digital India, the Bharat Net

project, the Internet Saathi project etc. are also responsible for increasing

the size of the e-commerce market.

CONSUMER ISSUES

Although a lot of e-commerce companies have grievance redressal

mechanisms, data released by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs shows that

there were around 78,088 complaints made against e-commerce companies

in 2018, a number which grew by 1400% from 5204 complaints in 2013-

14. Accordingly, the UNCTAD presented the problems faced by consumers

in e-commerce

1. False/misleading information about the product.

2. Delays in receiving or return of product.

3. Difficulties in payment and refunds.

4. Irreversibility of transactions.

5. Violation of data privacy.

6. Numerous instances of fraud, identity theft and scams.

7. Lack of after-service customer support and care.

8. Lack of information on consumer rights and dispute resolution

mechanism.

9. Unclear pricing mechanism and numerous surcharges.

DRAFT NATIONAL E-COMMERCE POLICY, 2019

Although there is no regulatory body for e-commerce in India, the Draft

National E-Commerce Policy, 2019 does provide for protection of the rights

of consumers:

1. Chapter F of Part III of the policy mandates any e-commerce site or

application through which sale and purchase take place to display the

phone number and email address for consumer grievances.

2. Chapter F of Part IV of the policy lays down the necessity of having a

consumer protection framework specifically to deal with e-commerce

disputes. For this purpose, a system for the online redressal of grievances

which includes payment of compensation online is recommended.

 

Authorisation of disputed transaction

 

HDFC Bank Limited and Ors. v. Hemant Narayan Devande

Facts: Respondent/Complainant Mr. Hemant Narayan Devande had an

account with the petitioner HDFC Bank Ltd. and he holds credit card issued

by the Petitioner bank. On 14.03.2014 there was a deceitful transaction and

payment was made of Rs. 26,998/- from the credit card through Amazon

Seller website. The same day, in the evening, the Complainant received a

phone call from HDFC Credit Card Company informing about the said

transaction and proposal for payment. The Complainant disputed the same

and sent a protest to the bank that he had not used the credit card to make any such payment. The internal inquiry was conducted by the Petitioner which only revealed that the transaction has been done using secure login and password which could be known only to the cardholder. The Complainant did not pay this amount when the bill of the credit card was received. However, the Opposite Party bank recovered an amount of Rs. 41,656.46/- which included the principal along with interest and penalty from Complainant’s other account. Aggrieved by the action of Petitioner bank, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Pune. Bank contended that the payment was Visa Password Verified and therefore, it was only possible when some person knowing the password have used the credit card. The password was not known to the bank employees. It is only known to the customer. Hearing both the parties District Forum directed the OPs to pay Rs. 41,656.46/- to the Complainant and also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- for harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation.

Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the petitioner bank preferred

an appeal with the State Commission, which dismissed the same. Hence the

revision petition was filed before the National Commission.

Decision: NCDRC observed that the denial of the transaction on phone

call by the Complainant shows that the petitioner bank must have come to

know that the transaction was disputed. The Petitioner should have stopped

the payment. If payment is to be authorised by the Petitioner bank in all the

circumstances, then what was the need to phone up the card holder and to

verify the transaction. The bank should not have debited to the credit card

of the Complainant without any inquiry. The Petitioner did not check with

the Amazon Company as to what item was purchased and on what address it was sent because that would have given the lead to make further inquiry into the question of deceitful payment.

Thus Hon’ble NCDRC held deficiency in service on the part of the bank

and order of the Forum was upheld.