Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/383/2017

Saurabh Nautiyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Devinder Kumar

21 Jul 2017

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/383/2017
Date  of  Institution	:	03/05/2017
Date   of   Decision	:	21/07/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Saurabh Nautiyal son of Sh. K.P. Nautiyal, Resident of House No. 2638/2, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

 

eBay India Private Limited, 14^th Floor, North Block, R-TECH Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai 400063, Maharashtra (India), through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.

….. Opposite Parties  

 

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Sukaam Gupta, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate.
For Opposite Party	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant had purchased a Panasonic T9 mobile battery (for short hereinafter to be referred as ‘the product’) from eBay India Pvt. Ltd. (for short hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Opposite Party No.1’) on its e-Commerce portal eBay.in, for Rs.551.08/- on 21.09.2016, vide Order ID 43668448835 (Retail Invoice Annexure C-1). It has been alleged that the product delivered by the Opposite Party was not the one ordered by the Complainant, therefore, he immediately contacted the Customer Care Department of the Opposite Party on 23.09.2016 and lodged his claim vide ID No. 2329644 with a request of refund/return of the amount. However, finding no respite, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party through its Customer Care Department, a number of times, reiterating his request to return his money and to collect the product from him, but to no avail. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.  

   

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Party, seeking its version of the case. Since, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 23.06.2017.

 

3.          Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

 

4.          We have heard the Ld. Proxy Counsel for the Complainant and have perused the record with utmost care and circumspection. 

 

5.          In the present case, the averments of the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of the Opposite Party, who was duly served, and preferred neither to appear in person, nor through its Counsel. It is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The Opposite Party has certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice, as it was incumbent upon it (Opposite Party) to deliver the ordered product i.e. Panasonic T9 mobile battery, to the Complainant, in the first instance, which it did not, and later on, it failed to refund the invoice price of the product, when requested by the Complainant. Also, the Opposite Party did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant despite a lapse of almost seven months. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against it.

 

6.          In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is directed:-

 

[a]  To refund the invoice price of the Panasonic T9 mobile battery to the Complainant; and take back the battery in question from the complainant, at its own expenses;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[c]  To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

7.          The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] and [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].  

 

8.          The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

21^st July, 2017                            Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                           Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER