Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/238/2016

Harsh Vardhan Tiwari - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Nitin Gupta Adv.

14 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	238/2016
Date of Institution	:	05.04.2016
Date of Decision	:	14/10/2016

 

                                       

                                               

Harsh Vardhan Tiwari s/o Lt. H.P.Tiwari r/o H.No.1599, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Ebay India Pvt. Ltd., 14^th Floor, North Block, R-Tech Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063.

 

2.     Rama Colour Photo Proc Pvt. Ltd., M-60, Greater Kailash, Part-I, Market, New Delhi.

 

3.     DTDC Courier, SCO No.4 & 5, First Floor, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh -160017.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:  

Sh.Nitin Gupta, Adv. for the complainant

                Sh.B.S.Walia, Adv. for OP No.3

                OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         The facts of the case, in brief, as alleged by the complainant are that  he ordered for cash on delivery of Corseca Snappy Boom Portable Bluetooth Speaker+MP3+FM Radio+Selfie Remote on the website of OP No.1/Ebay.in. and the same was delivered by OP No.2 on 05.01.2016 against the payment of Rs.1691/-. On using the item, he found that the FM and other functions of the portable bluetooth were not working properly.  He brought the aforesaid defects to the knowledge of the OPs through e-mails/phone calls and the OPs informed through e-mail that they would accept the return of the item and refund the full price.  Accordingly, he returned the item to OP No.2 through courier by paying Rs.190/- as courier charges. It has further been averred that  OP No.1 through an e-mail dated 25.01.2016 (Annexure C-5) confirmed that the request for refund was approved and the same would be refunded  by way of cheque/demand draft to his registered address within next 15 working days.  He also supplied the bank details to the OPs and was in consistent touch with the OPs for his refund. The OPs through an email dated 10.02.2016 (Annexure C-6) informed him that the refund would take 6-8 working days to reflect in his account but to no effect. It has further been averred that the OPs have failed to refund the amount despite his repeated requests and service of the legal notice dated 25.02.2016 (Annexure C-7). 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.         OP No.3 filed its written statement pleading therein that there is no contract between the complainant and it and as such the complaint qua it deserves to be dismissed.  It has further been pleaded that the correspondence referred to in the compliant was exchanged between the complainant and OP No.1.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.
4.         In his evidence, the complainant has tendered his detailed affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint alongwith copies of the e-mails exchanged with OP No.1. Annexure C-5 is the copy of the email dated 25.01.2016 sent by OP No.1 to the complainant. A close scrutiny of the same reveals that the request for refund has been approved by OP No.1 and the complainant was assured that the refund would be sent to him in the form of DD/cheque at his registered address within 15 working days but the same has not been refunded to him despite his repeated requests and service of the registered AD legal notice and even after filing the instant complaint before this Forum which itself amounts deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.
5.         Furthermore, OP No.1 despite due service through registered post did not care to contest the case and, as such, it can be concluded without any hesitation that either it admits the claim of the complainant or has nothing to say in the matter.   Hence, the deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 is writ large.
6.         In view of the foregoing reasons, the present complaint is allowed with a direction to Opposite Party No.1 to
   1. To refund Rs.1691/- being price of the item in question to the complainant.
   2. To pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
   3. To pay Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation.
7.         This order be complied with by OP No.1, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.
8.         The complaint qua OP Nos.2 and 3 stands dismissed.
9.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

14/10/2016

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER