Google Navigation, Rapido History Not Proof Of Physical Presence, Delhi State Commission Dismisses PhonePe's Plea Against Ex-Parte Order

Brief Facts:

The matter pertained to an 'ex-parte' order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi (“District Commission”) against PhonePe. Subsequently, PhonePe filed a review petition under Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 before the District Commission. It contended that its main counsel was occupied in another case before the Karkardooma Court, New Delhi, and had deputed a proxy counsel to appear before the District Commission. However, the District Commission allegedly failed to mark her presence and proceeded to pass an ex-parte order. PhonePe argued that since the proxy counsel duly appeared, the order should not have been passed ex-parte, and no prejudice would be caused to the complainant if the ex-parte order was set aside.

The District Commission held that Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 permits a review only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The District Commission noted that the order sheet indicated that the case was listed for PhonePe's evidence, but neither PhonePe nor any representative appeared despite the case being called twice. Consequently, the District Commission held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and dismissed the application. Feeling aggrieved, PhonePe filed a revision petition before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (“State Commission”).

PhonePe argued that its counsel regularly appeared before the District Commission. It argued that in one hearing, the main counsel assigned his junior associate to appear on his behalf to prevent absence in the matter. It claimed that the junior associate duly attended the proceedings with a scanned copy of the evidence along with proof of dispatch, but the District Commission erroneously failed to mark her presence and proceeded to pass an ex-parte order.

Observations by the State Commission:

The State Commission referred to the order passed by the District Commission and noted that PhonePe neither filed evidence by way of affidavit nor appeared before the District Commission. The District Commission waited until 02:00 PM for PhonePe's appearance before proceeding with the pronouncement of the ex-parte order.

The State Commission noted that to substantiate the proxy counsel's presence, PhonePe submitted Google navigation history and Rapido travel history indicating her arrival at the District Commission. However, the State Commission noted that no affidavit was filed by the proxy counsel to support these averments.

Further, the State Commission held that Google navigation history and Rapido travel history submitted by proxy counsel do not conclusively prove her attendance before the District Commission. It held that there was no documentary evidence to establish that proxy counsel actually appeared before the District Commission on the relevant date. Therefore, the State Commission dismissed PhonePe's revision petition.

Case Title: Phonepe Private Limited vs S. B. Tripathi

Case Number: Revision Petition No. 58/2024

Advocate for the Revisionist: Prince Pawaiya and Rashmi

Advocate for the Respondent: In Person

Date of Judgment: 27.03.2025

Click Here To Read/Download The Order