BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY

THURSDAY, the 10^th day of November, 2016

C.C. No.2/2016

U.Kumaraguru, S/o V.Umapathy,

aged 36 years, residing at

28, F-Type Quarters,

JIPMER Campus, Puducherry.              …………….                                      Complainant

                                                                              Vs.

1. E-Bay India Private Limited (Ebay Inc.)

    Rep. by its Managing Director,

    14^th Floor, North Block, R-Tech Park,

    Western Express Highway, Gurgaon (East),

    Mumbai – 400 063

2. Yogi Communications,

    Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

    No.1/125, Basement, Old Rajinder Nagar,

    New Delhi – 110 060.

3. Lingo Impex, Rep by Yogender Prasad Sahoo,

    RZD-2/132 Gali No.4, Mahavir Enclave,

    South West Delhi – 110 045.                  …………                               Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN        

PRESIDENT

TMT. K.K.RITHA,

MEMBER

THIRU S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,

MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

Thiru S.Vimal,

Advocate, Puducherry

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

No notice ordered

O   R    D    E    R

( By Tmt. K.K.Ritha, Member)

The complaint is filed before this Commission to direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.55,985/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of purchase till discharge for the purchase of Television on 04.11.2015 and  to pay compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. and Rs.20,000/- towards costs.

2. The facts of the complaint are that the complainant placed an order Ebay only online to the 1^st opposite party for the purchase of  SONY BRAVIA 43” LED Television. He paid a total consideration of Rs.55,985/- via net banking through HDFC Bank, Puducherry main branch on 04.11.2015. Since there was a delay in getting the TV, the complainant sent an e-mail to the 1^st opposite party on 12.11.2015 for cancelling his order and sought for the repayment of the amount.  Finally, after a lapse on 27.11.2015, the complainant received the TV at Puducherry and found that the parcel box came without any way bill either of the dealer or the manufacturer and some other stickers on the TV was found to have been removed.  When the complainant switched on the TV, he found the left hand top corner was broken and the screen was on damaged condition. Due to this, the complainant sought for the refund of the amount and sent a e-mail to the 1^st opposite party on 09.12.2015. On 26.12.2015, the 1^st opposite party sent an e-mail to re-shift the item back and the complainant expressed its inability to re-shift due to financial constraint.  Finally on 13.01.2016, the first opposite party denied the complainant’s claim for the refund of the amount which has caused mental agony and anguish to the complainant. Hence, he has made this complaint before this Commission for the defective goods and for unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and to redress his grievance.

            2. The opposite parties 1 to 3 have been served the notice, but no representation was made on their behalf and hence they were set exparte. The complainant filed documents marked as Exs.C1 to C10 and filed proof-affidavit.

            3. The learned counsel for the complainant put forth before this Commission and from the proof-affidavit it is obvious that there was a delay in receiving the TV set from the opposite parties and the parcel box was finally received without any label of the dealer or manufacturer.  When the TV was switched on, the left top corner side in it is found to be broken and the screen in damaged condition. The complainant informed about the defect to 1^st opposite party but, there was no proper response to solve the problem. He was put to hardship and mental agony without finding a solution either to return the TV or to retain it due to the defective product.

            4. The complainant’s e-mails and O.P1’ reply mail are filed before us and marked as Exs.C6 to C10. The 1^st opposite party has not come forward to return the money of the TV which was a defective one and hence deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

5. From the facts of the case and the arguments made by learned counsel appearing for the complainant, it is evident that the complainant had undergone mental agony and monetary loss by purchasing the defective TV to a tune of Rs. 55,985/- on 04.11.2015. Hence, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the cost of the TV, viz. Rs.55,985/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of its purchase on 04.11.2015 till realization and Rs.5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings.

            5. Since deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is proved on the part of opposite parties, they are jointly and severally directed to pay:

            i) to pay Rs.55,985/- being the cost of the TV with interest at 9% p.a. from 04.11.2015 till realization

            ii) to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five-Thousand only) for mental agony and sufferings; and

            iii) to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five-Thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2016.

(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

(K.K.RITHA)

                                                                                              MEMBER

(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)

MEMBER