Delhi

North East

CC/453/2015

Deepak Suneja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ebay India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 453/15

 

In the matter of:

 

		Deepak Suneja S/o Shri Birbal Suneja R/o Shukar Bazar Chowk, Shahdara Delhi-110093.		Complainant
		Versus
	1           2       3	M/s Ebay India Pvt. Ltd. Through its Principal Officer, 14th Floor, North Block, R-Tech Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 063 (Maharashtra)   Shri Neeraj Pruthi, Consigner 1224/5, Suchet Chamber, 4th Floor, Cabin No. 405, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005   Apple India Pvt. Ltd. Through its Principal Officer 19th Floor, Concorde Tower-C, UB City, No. 24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		19.11.2015
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON:		19.09.2017
			DATE OF DECISION:		25.09.2017

 

 

Shri N. K. Sharma, President:-

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member:-

 

 

 

 

 

Order by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya

ORDER

 

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh. Deepak Suneja, the complainant against M/s. Ebay India Pvt. Ltd- OP1, Shri Neeraj Pruthi, Consigner- OP2 & M/s. Apple India Pvt Ltd. – OP3
2. Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that on 17.09.2015, the complainant ordered a new Apple I-Phone 4s, 16 GB from OP1 for Rs. 12,999/- which was delivered by OP2 on 8.9.2015 vide PaisaPay ID No. 40369992473. On opening the box the complainant found that the said delivered Handset was not in working condition for which he visited Radius System Pvt. Ltd., the Authorized Service Centre of OP3. At the Service Centre the complainant was informed that the product had already been rejected by OP3 since 2011-12 and the same was not covered within any warranty or guaranty. On 09.11.2015 the complainant registered a complaint with OP1 regarding delivery of obsolete and dead handset vide complaint number 1253265. It has further been stated that after continuous follow up finally on 29.9.2015 complainant received an email by OP1 for reverse pickup of the faulty handset which was done on 30.9.2017 through FedEx Express shipment. It is also stated that the complainant has not received the refund till date. A legal notice dated 26.10.2015 demanding refund of the handset was also sent to OPs which was neither replied nor complied with. Hence, the present complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of OPs. The complainant has prayed for refund of cost of handset i.e. Rs. 12,999/-, compensation of          Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and agony and Rs. 22,000/- for litigation charges. Complainant has annexed receipt of cash on delivery, shipping declaration, FedEx shipment receipt, Emails exchanged between complainant and OP and legal notice with complaint.
3. OP1 & OP2 were proceeded ex parte as they failed to appear and file their reply despite service.
4. OP3 in their reply took various pleas such as the I-phone in India is sold by authorized dealers only and the handset which undergo strict quality test to ensure high standards; No expert opinion was filed to prove allegation of manufacturer’s deficiency; that the complainant never approached the Authorized Service Centre of OP3 and there was no record available to prove the same. It was stated that OP3 was not responsible for the service provide by OP1 & OP2. The payment was made by the complainant to OP2 and was not in the knowledge of OP3. The allegations of the complainant with respect delivery of faulty and obsolete handset was not substantiated by any service report.  Rest of the contents of complaint were denied. OP3 has annexed warranty terms & conditions as annexure R1.
5. In rejoinder the complainant has stated that OP3 being the manufacturer was liable for unfair trade practice. Rest of the contents of reply was denied and those of the complaint were reaffirmed.
6. Shri Deepak Suneja was examined on behalf of complainant where he deposed the contents of complaint on affidavit. He has got exhibited cash memo and shipping declaration as Ex CW1/11 and Ex CW2/11 respectively. Copy of FedEx Express shipment and email  exhibited as Ex CW3/11 and Ex CW4/11, copy of legal notice alongwith postal receipt and track report have been exhibited as Ex CW5/11 to Ex CW-11/11.
7. Country Legal Counsel Shri Priyesh Poovanna, for OP3 was examined who has stated that no records were available with authorized service centre of OP3 and no service report was issued by the service centre to certify the alleged defects in phone. Thus, no defect could be proved. He has got exhibited the Board Resolution as Annexure R1 & Terms and Conditions of warranty as Annexure R2.
8. We have gone through the written submission filed by complainant and OP3 and have heard the arguments on behalf of complainant.
9. Perusal of exhibit CW1/11 is the receipt and exhibit CW2/11 is shipping declaration, where name of consigner is “Shri Neeraj Pruthi, OP2” and “contents of the package are I-Phone 4s 16GB (W) imported unlocked”. This proves that the complainant had purchased I-Phone which was duly delivered showing OP2 as the retailer. This fact is further substantiated by exhibit CW3/11 where the recipient of the package is OP2 again. The exhibit CW3/11 bears the sender name Sumit and sender signature bears the sign of complainant i.e. Deepak Suneja. On enquiry the complainant stated that Sumit is his brother. As per emails also, the complainant was directed to follow the instruction for reverse pickup. As far as OP3 is concerned the complainant has failed to place on record any service report to prove his allegations of manufacturing defect. As exhibit CW2/11 bears the contents of phone as “imported unlocked”, this implies that OP2 has delivered handset which has not been manufactured by OP3 i.e. Apple (India) Pvt. Ltd. Hence, no deficiency in service can be attributed to OP3. OP1 and OP2 have been proceeded ex parte. Hence, the allegations made against them have remained uncontroverted. Ex CW2/11 and Ex CW3/11 further strengthen the contentions of complainant where he has been delivered faulty phone by OP2. Hence, we hold OP2 liable of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Therefore, OP2 is directed to refund Rs. 12,999/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of delivery i.e. 8.9.2015 till realization. We also award compensation of Rs. 7,500/- on account of mental agony and harassment which shall be paid by OP2. This includes litigation charges also.
10. This order be complied within 30 days
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
12. File be consigned to record room.
13. Announced on  25.09.2017            

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member