IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2014.

Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)

C.C.No.127/2013 (Filed on 03.10.2013)

Between:

Lekha. G.,

Sreemandiram,

V. Kottayam.P.O.,

Pathanamthitta,

Pin – 689 656.                                                              …..    Complainant

And:

1. e-bay India Pvt. Ltd.,

14^th Floor, North Block,

R-The Park,

Western Express Highway,

Goregaon (East),

Mumbai – 400 063,

Maharashtra State.

1. Mr. Jetain Agarwal,

Sunrise International,

C-189, Shastri Nagar,

Jodhpur – 342 003,

Rajastan, India.                                                   …..    Opposite parties

O R D E R

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):

                   Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. Brief facts of the case is as follows:  On 26.05.2013 complainant ordered a dining set having 1 table and 6 chairs costs Rs.22,000/- through the online shopping portal of 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party as the furniture seller delivered the said dining set on 13.07.2013.  But two chairs were seen completely damaged and the table is slightly broken.  On the basis of the complaint made by the complainant the 2^nd opposite party had taken back the damaged chairs on 23.07.2013 for replacement and it was not replaced till 16.08.2013.  Under this circumstances, the complaint forwarded a replacement guarantee claim of the 1^st opposite party.

                   3. After getting the replacement guarantee claim the 1^st opposite party closed the claim arbitrarily and informed the complainant on 08.08.2013 that the 2^nd opposite party will replace the furniture within 4 days, otherwise the 1^st opposite party will help the complaint for further action.  But even after the agreed period the replacement was not done by the 2^nd opposite party and therefore the matter was brought to the notice of 1^st opposite party on 16.08.2013 by the complainant. 

                   4. On 16.08.2013 the 1^st opposite party e-mailed a letter to the complainant by offering refund and courier charges and requested to send back the remaining furniture to the 2^nd opposite party via Courier.  After receiving the mail, the complainant send the remaining furniture to the 2^nd opposite party on 17.08.2013 and for that the complainant spent another Rs.5,842/- as courier charge.

                   5. But even though the complainant complied the directions given by the 1^st opposite party, the 1^st opposite party did not turned to fulfill their part of assurance even after a lapse of 1½ month.  Thus the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.27,842/- as the cost and courier charges.  The above said act of the opposite parties is an unfair trade practice, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.

                   6. Hence the complainant approached this Forum by seeking relief for getting back Rs.27,842/- as the price of furniture and courier charge along with cost of Rs.3,784/- and compensation of Rs.25,000/- from the opposite parties.

                   7. In this case, opposite parties are exparte.

                   8. On the basis of the pleadings of the complainant, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?

                   9. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A9.  After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.

                   10. The Point:-  Complainant’s allegation is that on 26.05.2013 she ordered a dining set through the on line shopping portal of 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party as the furniture seller delivered the said dining set on 13.07.2013.  But it was found that 2 chairs were completely damaged and the table was slightly broken.  On the basis of the complaint made by the complainant 2^nd opposite party had taken back the damaged chairs on 23.07.2013 for replacement.  But it was not replaced.  Under this circumstances, complainant forwarded a replacement guarantee claim to the 1^st opposite party.  1^st opposite party closed the claim and informed that within 4 days furniture will be replaced by the 2^nd opposite party.  But it was not done within the assured time.  Complainant again brought the matter to the notice of the 1^st opposite party.  Then 1^st opposite party e-mailed a letter by offering refund and courier charge and requested to send back the remaining furniture to the 2^nd opposite party.  Complainant done the same.  But opposite parties did not turned up to fulfill their part of assurance.  The above said act of the opposite party is an unfair trade practice and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant. 

                   11. In order to prove the case of the complainant, an authorized representative of the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and produced 9 documents which are marked as Exts.A1 to A9.  Ext.A1 is the authorization letter in favour of PW1.  Ext.A2 is the e-mail payment receipt dated 26.05.2013.  Ext.A3 is the original invoice for Rs.22,000/- dated 10.06.2013.  Ext.A4 is the e-mail confirmation between the complainant and opposite parties for the payment.  Ext.A5 is the courier bill.  Ext.A6 is the e-mail information regarding guarantee claim settlement.  Ext.A7 is the copy of guarantee claim.  Ext.A8 is the courier bill for Rs.5,842 dated 26.08.2013.  Ext.A9 is the letter dated 09.09.2013 send by the complainant requesting the refund of the amount. 

                   12. On a perusal of Ext.A2 to Ext.A5 it is sent hat the complainant had ordered a dining set from the opposite parties by paying Rs.22,000/- and it was delivered to the complainant.  From Ext.A4 to A9, it is further seen that some items were damaged and the complainant demanded the refund of the amount from the opposite parties.  From the deposition of PW1, it is evident that opposite parties supplied damaged chairs and dining set to the complainant and it was properly informed to the opposite parties and even though opposite parties assured the replacement or refund, they did not turned up till the filing of this complaint.  But at the time of examination he stated that after getting notice from the Forum 1^st opposite party remitted the cost of furniture, Rs.22,000/-, into the bank account maintained by the complainant.  Thus the main prayer of the complainant for getting the cost of the furniture is seen redressed.  Then the question is only with regard to the courier charge, cost and compensation.

                   13. On going through Ext.A7 (e-mail) sent by 1^st opposite party to the complainant, it is clearly stated that as and when the remaining items are returned to 2^nd opposite party, they will return the price of the items as well as the courier charges.  But according to the complainant they have not returned the courier charges and other expenses.  Since opposite parties are exparte.  Complainant’s case stands proved as unchallenged.  The non-refund of the amounts entitled to the complainant by the opposite parties is an unfair trade practice which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable for the same to the complainant.  Therefore, we find that this complaint is allowable in part. 

                   14. In the result, this complaint is allowed partly, thereby the opposite parties are directed to return the courier charge of Rs.5,842/- (Rupees Five Thousand Eight hundred and forty two only) along with compensation of Rs.2,500/- Rupees Two Thousand Five hundred only) and cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount ordered herein above with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.

                   Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of January, 2013.

                                                                                                          (Sd/-)

                                                                                                K.P. Padmasree,

                                                                                                      (Member)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)           :  (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Prakash Kumar. V.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1     :  Authorization letter in favour of PW1. 

A2     :  e-mail payment receipt dated 26.05.2013. 

A3     :  Original invoice dated 10.06.2013 for Rs.22,000/- issued by the

             2^nd opposite party in the name of the complainant.

A4     :  e-mail confirmation between the complainant and opposite parties  

            for the payment.    

A5     :  Courier bill. 

A6     :  e-mail information regarding guarantee claim settlement. 

A7     : Guarantee claim. 

A8     :  Courier bill dated 26.08.2013 for Rs.5,842/-. 

A9     :  Letter dated 09.09.2013 sent by the complainant to the

            1^st opposite party.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil. 

                                                                                                 (By Order)

                                                                                                       (Sd/-)

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

Copy to:- (1) Lekha. G., Sreemandiram, V. Kottayam.P.O.,Pathanamthitta,

                     Pin – 689 656.                                        

1.  e-bay India Pvt. Ltd., 14^th Floor, North Block, R-The Park,

            Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East),

            Mumbai – 400 063, Maharashtra State.

1.  Mr. Jetain Agarwal, Sunrise International, C-189, Shastri   

      Nagar, Jodhpur – 342 003, Rajastan, India.

1.  The Stock File.