Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/30/2016

Pritam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sumit Sangwan

22 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/30/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	12/01/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	22/07/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Pritam Singh S/o Sh. Man Singh, R/o H.No.1329-A, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh.

 …………… Complainant.

 

VERSUS

 

1.   eBay India Private Limited, 14^th floor, North Block, R-Tech Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063, Maharashtra (India).

 

2.   Blue Dart Express Limited, SCO 165-166, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

……………  Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    DR.MANJIT SINGH            PRESIDENT

           MRS.SURJEET KAUR           MEMBER

SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA    MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OP No.1	:	Ex-parte.
For OP No.2	:	Sh. Satyaveer Singh, Advocate.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

          The succinct facts of the present Complaint are that on 09.11.2015 the Complainant bought a silver idol of Luxmi and Ganesha from Opposite Party No.1 through its online shopping website by paying a sum of Rs.2627/-. It has been alleged that when he did not receive the aforesaid item up to its estimated delivery time i.e. 18.11.2015, he claimed the same vide Claim ID 1443866, upon which he was informed on 24.11.2015 that the item had been delivered to him. Thereafter, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No.2 regarding the non-delivery of the product, but it did not pay any heed of his request. Eventually, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No.1 on its helpline number, a number of times, but nothing was done by it to redress his grievance. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 25.02.2016.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.2, in its reply, while admitting the basic facts of the case has pleaded that one shipment was booked by Opposite Party No.1 vide airway bill No.69385540221 dated 11.11.2015 which was picked up from Chennai for delivery to the consignee. It has been asserted that while booking the above mentioned consignment, Opposite Party No.1 had provided one address of Chandigarh and alternate address of Chennai. Both these addresses have been mentioned in the proof of delivery. The said shipment was delivered on 24.11.2015 on the alternate address provided of Chennai. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The complainant has filed a replication, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.2.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned counsel for the Parties and have perused the record. 

 

7.      The grievance of the Complainant is that he purchased one silver idol of Luxmi and Ganesha from eBay India Pvt. Limited (Opposite Party No.1) through its online shopping website by paying an amount of Rs.2627/- through his credit card. However, neither the product in question has been delivered to him nor the money has been refunded by the Opposite Party No.1, despite having promising the estimated delivery time of 18.11.2015. It has been alleged by the Complainant that Opposite Party No.1 sent him one message that the item in question has been delivered to him (Annexure C-4). Importantly, there is an e-mail at page no.9 of the paper book showing the protest of the Complainant that the item has not been delivered to him and he was waiting delivery thereof. Annexure C-5 is the record of various telephone calls made by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1 to know the delivery status of the item in question.

 

8.      It is important to note that the Opposite Party No.1 chose not to appear before this Forum and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 25.02.2016. Therefore, the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted against it.  

 

9.      The stand taken by Opposite Party No.2 is that one shipment was booked by Opposite Party No.1 and the same was picked from Chennai and was also delivered at Chennai at the alternate address of the Complainant provided by him to Opposite Party No.1.

 

10.      Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 raised a plea that the Complainant is not a consumer qua Opposite Party No.2. We are impressed with the same, in as much as, the Complainant paid the consideration amount for the item in question to Opposite Party No.1 only and has thus no relation with the Opposite Party No.2. Since there is no contract between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2, therefore, the present Complaint is not maintainable qua Opposite Party No.2 and the same is accordingly dismissed against it.

 

11.      Evidently, the payment was made to Opposite Party No.1, through the credit card of the Complainant, therefore, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party No.1 is the best party to explain as to whether the Complainant gave any alternate address to it i.e. of Chennai or not, and even if so, what was the reason to deliver the item at the alternate address of Chennai and not at the given address of the Complainant at Chandigarh. At any rate, it is only Opposite Party No.1 who can clarify about the status of the item to corroborate the defence taken by the Opposite Party No.2, but, pertinently, it chose not to appear before this Forum. As per the case of the Complainant neither the ordered item nor the refund thereof has been made to him, till date, therefore, the act of Opposite Party No.1 to charge money from the Complainant, non-delivering the item ordered and non-appearing during the proceedings of the present case, makes a clear pointer towards it being deficient in rendering proper services to the Complainant and its indulgence in unfair trade practice, which certainly has caused unprecedented physical and mental harassment to the Complainant.

 

12.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1 alone, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.2627/- to the Complainant; 

[b]  To make payment of Rs.2500/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

[c]  To make payment of Rs.2500/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

          The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

13.      The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Party No.1, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr. No.[a] & [b] shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

14.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

22^nd July, 2016                                         

Sd/-

[DR.MANJIT SINGH]

PRESIDENT

                                               

 

Sd/-

[SURJEET KAUR]

MEMBER

  

                        

Sd/-

[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]                                                                                                   

                                                                             MEMBER

“Dutt”