Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/10/2015

Sumeet Dhiman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ebay India Pvt. Limited & anr. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

23 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	10/2015
Date of Institution	:	06.01.2015
Date of Decision	:	23/03/2015

 

                  

                                                         

 

Sumeet Dhiman s/o Sh.O.P.Dhiman r/o H.No.5166, Sector 38-West, U.T, Chandigarh.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.       Ebay India Private Ltd., 14^th Floor, North Block, R-TECH Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063, Maharashtra (India) through its Authorized Signatory.

 

2.       Anaji Naik, 2/208 Vahatuk Nagar, Ceasar Road, Behind Amboli Church, Andheri West, Mumbai-400058.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

Argued by:  Sh.N.K.Vasudeva, Counsel for the complainant and complainant, in person.

                        Opposite Parties exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he had visited the site of OP No.1 and ordered 2 Armani Emporio Watches from the website of OP No.1 worth Rs.12,788.20 and selected an option for cash on delivery and was given record No.720 and 4473 respectively.  According to the complainant, on 26.11.2014 he received one Armani Emporio Watch worth 6439.10 vide record No.720 from OP No.2.  According to the complainant when he opened the seal of the box, the warranty card was not found and as such he approached OP No.1 at customer care and asked it about the warranty card and also told that the order which he received was not as per the ordered description.  It has been averred that on website of OP No.1 it was mentioned that the watch would come within two years warranty card.   OP No.1 asked the complainant to contact OP No.2 as it was the responsibility of OP No.2 to provide the warranty card.  It has further been averred that OP No.1 registered his complaint and the complainant was given claim No.784938 dated 08.12.2014, Annexure C-2.  Accordingly, the complainant approached OP No.2 that the item received was not as described by OP No.2 on the website of OP No.1 as he did not receive the warranty card as promised by OP No.2.  Upon this, OP No.2 asked the complainant to pay Rs.10,000/- in order to get warranty card from him which means that the item is rather a replica or OP No.2 was not authorized to sell the item which was against OP No.1 policy.  Thereafter, the complainant again contacted OP No.1 about the grievance on which it replied that the case was with OP No.2 and they could not do anything. If the seller would say to refund the money only then it would be able to refund the money otherwise not.   It has further been averred that OP No.1 vide e-mail, Annexure C-3, the complaint was closed and directed the complainant to approach OP No.2.  According to the complainant, he tried to contact OP No.2 on telephone but to no effect.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           Notices were sent for the service of Opposite Parties through registered post on 13.01.2015.  However, neither the same were received back served/unserved till date.  As the period of more than 30 days had passed, therefore, it was presumed that they had been duly served.  None appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties on the date fixed, hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.02.2015.
3.           We have heard the Counsel for the complainant and perused the entire record carefully.
4.           The complainant has proved his case by leading documentary evidence as well as tendering his duly sworn affidavit in which he reiterated the averments as averred in the complaint.  The complainant has also placed on record the order statement, Annexure C-1 through which the complainant received the watch, in question, worth Rs.6439.10P.  Annexure C-2 is the copy of the complaint/claim No.784938 registered with OP No.1.  Annexure C-3 is the copy of the e-mail through which the claim/complaint of the complainant was rejected.  In our considered view, non-providing of the warranty card of the product, in question, and delivering the product against the description as ordered by the complainant itself amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
5.           Moreover, the Opposite Parties did not appear to contest the case of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Parties draws an adverse inference against them.  Non-appearance of the Opposite Parties shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & un-controverted.
6.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to refund Rs.6439.10P being the price of the watch in question to the complainant with a lump sum compensation of Rs.3,000/-. The complainant is also directed to hand over the watch in question to the Opposite Parties immediately on receipt of the payment, aforesaid.    This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay the interest @9% per annum on the aforesaid amounts from the date of this order till actual payment.
7.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

23/03/2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

cmg