Read Time: 03 minutes
The High Court issued notice to the respondent after considering Facebook India’s argument of its liability under the IT Act 2000 and stayed the order passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
A single judge bench of Justice Manish Pitale of the Nagpur Bench, of Bombay High Court, stayed the order passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Gondia. The order had directed the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.599 to respondent no. 1 for a product not delivered and Rs.25,000.
The petition was filed before the High Court by Facebook India Online Services Private Limited, through its director, aggrieved by the complaint that was partly allowed by the commission along with specific directions.
The advocate for the petitioner argued that the petitioners have complete immunity as prescribed under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act 2000. He also cited Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 and Google India Private Limited Vs. Visaka Industries (2020) 4 SCC 162 to draw the court’s attention to the definition of intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000. It was submitted before the court that the Information Technology Act has an overriding effect on any other law in force and that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is in addition to and not in derogation of other legislations.
The Court while issuing notice to the respondents stayed the order of the commission which had directed the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.599 to respondent no. 1 for a product not delivered and Rs.25,000 towards mental agony and legal costs
Case Title: Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Director. vs. Tribhuvan Solalchand Bhongade and Another
Please Login or Register
