1. Facts of the Case
‘DIPCART’ is an e-commerce company based in Bangalore, Karnataka, dealing in digital products, including mobile phones, tablets, and accessories. The company advertises its products online and sells them across India through its official website and app.
Mr. X, a resident of Hyderabad, Telangana, after viewing an advertisement on the internet, ordered a mobile phone from DIPCART’s website. Upon delivery, he discovered that the product was defective, not working as described, and attempts to resolve the issue through customer service failed.
As a result, Mr. X filed a complaint before the Hyderabad District Consumer Forum, seeking replacement or refund along with damages for harassment and mental agony.
This raises the legal issue of jurisdiction: Can a consumer in Hyderabad file a case in their local forum when the seller is based in Bangalore?
2. Issues in the Case
1. Does the Hyderabad District Consumer Forum have jurisdiction over a company based in Bangalore?
2. Does the place of the consumer (where the product is delivered and used) hold jurisdiction in e-commerce transactions?
3. Is online shopping covered under the Consumer Protection Act and the Information Technology Act, 2000?
4. Are the rights of e-commerce consumers protected under Indian law even in cross-state transactions?
3. Legal Principles Covered
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Jurisdiction
Section 34 – Jurisdiction of the District Commission
According to Section 34(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019:
A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction—
- The opposite party resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or
- The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
In this case:
- The product was delivered in Hyderabad
- Payment was made by Mr. X from Hyderabad
- The cause of action arose in Hyderabad when a defective product was delivered
Thus, Hyderabad District Consumer Forum has jurisdiction.
Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020
Under Rule 4 and Rule 6:
- Every e-commerce entity is required to provide clear return and redressal mechanisms
- Consumers have the right to file complaints where the harm occurred, not just where the company is registered
DIPCART, being an e-commerce firm, is obligated to comply with these rules and cannot restrict jurisdiction through Terms & Conditions.
Information Technology Act, 2000 – Section 75
Although primarily concerned with cyber offences, Section 75 of the IT Act supports extraterritorial application in digital transactions. It supports the idea that:
- The location of the affected party (the consumer) is relevant
- The cause of action in digital space can occur at the user’s end
This further reinforces the consumer’s right to lodge a complaint where the harm was experienced, even if the seller is in another state.
Relevant Case Laws
Sonic Surgical v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010)
The Supreme Court held that the place where the cause of action arises is sufficient for jurisdiction, even if the opposite party operates from another location.
Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Amway India Enterprises (2020)
This case reinforced the accountability of e-commerce platforms and the consumer’s right to seek redressal where they reside.
4. Possible Judgement
If the Forum Considers Jurisdiction Valid
The Hyderabad District Consumer Forum is well within its rights to hear and decide the case based on:
- Place of product delivery (Hyderabad)
- Cause of action arising in Hyderabad
- Provisions under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and E-Commerce Rules, 2020
DIPCART may be directed to:
- Replace the defective product or refund the purchase amount
- Pay compensation for harassment or deficiency in service
- Improve its customer grievance redressal mechanism
The court may also issue a warning or directive to comply with E-Commerce Rules regarding consumer rights, refund policy, and grievance timelines.
If the Forum Dismisses the Complaint on Jurisdiction Grounds
Mr. X can appeal to the State Commission, arguing that the cause of action arose in Hyderabad. However, recent consumer protection laws clearly support the consumer’s right to approach the forum in their own locality, making dismissal unlikely.
