Punjab

Sangrur

CC/330/2017

Pardeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Tarun Goyal

04 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  330

                                                Instituted on:    13.07.2017

                                                Decided on:       04.12.2017

 

Pardeep Kumar son of Amar Nath, R/O Ward No.13, Opposite Police Station, Moonak, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

 

                                Versus

 

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

2.             Ritu Vats 3/122, GF UGF, Karan Gali Vishwas Nagar, Delhi-110032, Mobile No.7011012121 through its Manager/Authorised Signatory.

3.             XIOMI MI India, 4^th Floor, Plot No. 183 to 197 & 254 to 258, Bommasandra, Jigani Link Road Bommasandra, Bangalore through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Tarun Goyal, Advocate.

For OP No.2             :       Shri Anil Aggarwal, Advocate.

For OP No.3             :       Shri Sandip Goyal, Advocate.

For OP NO.1             :       Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Pardeep Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he placed an order for purchase of one mobile phone Redmi on 25.6.2017 with OP number 1 by paying the amount of Rs.10,499/-, which was delivered to the complainant on 5.7.2017.  The case of the complainant is that after receipt of the mobile phone, he found that its price was Rs.8999/- only as printed on the box meaning thereby the OPs charged an amount of Rs.1500/- in excess.    Further case of the complainant is that though he requested the OPs to refund the excess price so charged, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund/pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1500/- along with interest and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that the OP number 1 did not appear despite service, as such, OP number 1 was proceeded exparte on 29.08.2017.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint, that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  On merits,  it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question with temper guard and further stated that the price of the mobile set is Rs.8999/-, cost of temper guard Rs.751/- and shipping charges of Rs.741/- i.e. total Rs.10,499/-. It is stated that no such grievance was ever got registered by the complainant nor any notice was sent to the OP, as such, it is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

       

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 affidavit and documents and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/3 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the documents produced on the file by the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that through OP number 1, the complainant purchased a new mobile phone XIOMI Redmi on 25.6.2017 as is evident from the copy of retail invoice, which is on record as Ex.OP2/2 i.e. total price Rs.10,499/- as charged by OP number 1.  Further a bare perusal of it clearly reveals that the price of the mobile set is Rs.8999/-, price of temper guard as Rs.751/- and an amount of Rs.749/- has been added as freight and forwarding charges, meaning thereby the OP number 1 has rightly charged the amount of Rs.10,499/- as agreed between the complainant and OP number 1 and the complainant placed the order after paying the amount of Rs.10499/-. The complainant has not produced on record the copy of retail invoice of the mobile set in question.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he withheld the copy of invoice and why the same was not produced on record by the complainant himself.  It is worth mentioning here that whenever any person purchases anything online from any site, the invoice is immediately generated and the same can be very well perused/printer, which is having complete details thereof.  The same is the position of the retail invoice Ex.OP2/2 in the present case.  In the circumstances, we feel that every detail is provided on the retail invoice regarding the charging of the amount of Rs.10,499/- and further to support this contention the OP number 2 has produced affidavit of Ritu Vats Ex.Op2/1. As such,  we find nothing wrong on the part of the OP number 1 in charging the amount of Rs.10,499/-.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                                        Pronounced.

                                        December 4, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                          

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                  Member