Google Navigation and Rapido Logs Not Sufficient to Prove Appearance: Delhi State Commission Upholds Ex-Parte Order Against PhonePe
Pranav B Prem
In a significant order affirming procedural discipline in consumer litigation, the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that Google navigation logs and Rapido ride history do not constitute valid proof of appearance before a consumer forum. The Commission dismissed a revision petition filed by PhonePe Pvt. Ltd., affirming that mere presence within court premises does not amount to legal appearance, especially when the presence is not supported by proper judicial records or an affidavit by the appearing counsel.
The matter was heard and decided by a bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Judicial Member), which found no legal infirmity in the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi on 18 April 2024, proceeding ex-parte against PhonePe. The State Commission also upheld the District Commission’s order dated 14 August 2024, rejecting PhonePe’s review application filed under Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Background and Procedural History
The original complaint, filed by S.B. Tripathi, related to alleged service deficiencies on the part of PhonePe Pvt. Ltd. The complaint had been pending since 19 November 2022, and PhonePe had entered appearance through counsel and received multiple opportunities to file evidence. However, the record indicated prolonged non-compliance with the directive to file affidavit evidence despite seven adjournments granted between February 2023 and April 2024.
On 19 January 2024, the District Commission imposed costs of Rs. 1,000 for repeated failure to file evidence, warning PhonePe that the matter would be treated as “last opportunity.” When the matter was listed again on 18 April 2024, the District Commission recorded in its order that no one appeared for the opposite party (PhonePe) despite the matter being called out twice, including at 2:00 PM, and hence, it was constrained to proceed ex-parte.
In its review petition filed thereafter, PhonePe argued that its counsel was occupied before another forum (Karkardooma Courts) and had deputed a proxy counsel, one Ms. Pooja Gupta, to appear on its behalf. It was further submitted that the proxy counsel had attended the proceedings with a scanned copy of the affidavit evidence and proof of dispatch of physical copies to the complainant. However, it was contended, her presence was not marked by the District Commission.
The District Commission, in its order dated 14 August 2024, rejected the review application, holding that no error apparent on the face of record was made out under Section 40. It noted that PhonePe had consistently failed to file evidence over multiple opportunities, and the proxy counsel’s alleged appearance was not reflected on record nor supported by any admissible material.
PhonePe’s Grounds Before the State Commission
PhonePe challenged both orders by filing Revision Petition No. 58 of 2024, arguing that it was penalized unfairly and that there was substantial compliance with the order to file evidence. It submitted Google navigation history and Rapido ride logs showing that the proxy counsel reached the vicinity of the District Commission on the date in question. The company argued that such evidence, taken cumulatively, demonstrated bona fide presence and warranted setting aside of the ex-parte order.
However, the Commission found that no affidavit had been filed by the proxy counsel, Ms. Pooja Gupta, to attest to her appearance. Nor was any documentary proof presented to establish that she had submitted or attempted to submit evidence in court.
Observations by the State Commission
The State Commission scrutinized the record of proceedings and emphasized that: “The District Commission specifically noted that the matter was called at 2:00 PM as well, and still no one appeared for the Opposite Party. Consequently, the matter was rightly proceeded ex-parte.”
On the question of whether Google location and Rapido travel history could establish legal appearance, the Commission was unequivocal: “By the Google navigation history and Rapido travel history filed by the revisionist, it cannot be proved that the proxy counsel had appeared before the District Commission.”
The order went on to clarify that physical arrival at the forum premises does not constitute legal appearance unless corroborated by either the court’s own records or sworn affidavits. In the absence of these, the tribunal held that it could not entertain mere travel history as proof of compliance.
The State Commission emphasized that procedural law must be adhered to with seriousness, especially in litigation involving entities with professional legal teams. Noting the timeline of the proceedings, it recorded that PhonePe had been granted adequate opportunities over a span of nearly 17 months to file its evidence but chose to delay the process without valid justification.
Citing judicial discipline and fairness to the complainant, the Commission upheld the District Commission’s discretion in proceeding ex-parte, observing that: “The District Commission has only exercised the jurisdiction vested in it and there is no material irregularity in the orders dated 18.04.2024 and 14.08.2024.”
Final Directions
Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed, and the ex-parte proceedings were allowed to continue. However, the Commission provided limited relief by allowing PhonePe to file written submissions before the District Commission, if so advised, in the interest of procedural fairness.
Appearance
For the Revisionist: Adv.Prince Pawaiya, Adv. Rashmi
For the Respondent: Respondent in person who himself is a practicing lawyer
Cause Title: Phonepe Private Limited V. Mr. S. B. Tripathi
Case No: Revision Petition No. 58/2024
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal [President], Hon’ble Ms. Pinki [Member (Judicial)]
[Read/Download order]
