Punjab

Sangrur

CC/19/2017

Vishav Nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shri R.S.Bhangu

19 May 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 19                                                                                           

                                                                  Instituted on:   12.01.2017                                                     

                                                                    Decided on:    19.05.2017

 

Vishav Nath son of Baldev Nath c/o Studio Prince, Near Civil Hospital, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur.        

                                                        …. Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1.     Ebay India Pvt. Limited, 14th Floor, North Block, R-Tech Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai 400063, Maharashtra, India through its authorized Signatory.     

 

2.     Blue Dart Centre, Sahar Airport Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400099 through its authorized signatory.

3.     Blue Dart Express, Opposite HDFC Bank, Hotel Mayur, Friends Colony, Kaula Park, Dhuri Gate, Sangrur.

                                                ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri R.S.Bhangu, Advocate                         

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1          :      Exparte                         

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.2&3  :      Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate                         

 

 

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

     

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Vishav Nath complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased online one Apple iphone6-16GB-Gold Smartphone with one year warranty from the OP no.1 on 21.05.2016 for an amount of Rs.35499/-. OP no.1 had sent an email to the complainant for order confirmation i.e. confirmation of eBay order on 21.05.2016. Thereafter the OP no.1 had sent email to the complainant on 24.05.2016 regarding shipping of iphone 6 with shipping details i.e. Courier name Blue Dart with airway bill. After so many days the when the complainant did not receive his phone  he immediately approached OP no.1 then the OP no.1 assured that his product will be delivered within a week. Thereafter the complainant again approached the OP no.1 on phone regarding delivery of phone and on 12.06.2016 OP no.1 sent a email that delivery of phone is delayed.  The complainant  at once approached the OP no.1 on phone and sent email on 20.06.2016 at 12:17 PM to OP no.1 regarding non-delivery  of the phone  then OPs assured that his phone will be delivered in a week on his address but till date the phone is not delivered by the OPs to the complainant. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

 

i)      OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.35499/- alongwith interest @18% per annum,

 

ii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.30000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.11000/- as counsel fee,

 

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OP no. 1 did not appear and as such OP no.1 was proceeded exparte.

3.             In reply filed by the OPs no.2&3, preliminary objection has been raised on the ground that the complainant is not the consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant did not obtain any services of OPs no.2&3 at any point of time. Therefore, the complainant does not fall under the definition of Consumer and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the consignment was reached on 27.05.2016 for its delivery to the complainant in sealed condition as pecked by the OP no.2&3 from OP no.1. However when the customer opened the packet and found the brick in the packet  instead of mobile phone as ordered by him then customer refused to sign the delivery slip and returned the consignment without sign or make any remarks. The OP no.3 reported the matter through email on the same day to the higher authorities of OP. Thereafter  the OPs returned the consignment to OP no.1 with remarks that " Shortage: Short Packing by shipper". Therefore there is no fault on the part of OPs no.2 and 3.

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs no.2&3 have tendered an affidavit alongwith annexure R-1 authority letter and closed evidence.

5.             We have perused the entire documents produced by the complainant and OPs no.2 and 3. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that it is not disputed between the  complainant and the OPs no.2 and 3 that the complainant had purchased online one Apple iphone from OP no.1 which was to be delivered through OPs no.2 and 3.

6.             The main point of controversy in this case is that whether the complainant has received the purchased mobile phone from the OP no.1 through OPs no.2 and 3 or not?

7.             The complainant's specific case is that he has not received till date the purchase mobile phone from the OP no.1. To prove his version he has produced on record copies of emails sent/ received Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7 which proves that the complainant has not received the mobile phone in question from the OP no.1 till date.  Another aspect of the present case is that the OPs no.2 and 3 have admitted in their reply that on 27.05.2016  the delivery boy of the OPs visited the premises of complainant to deliver the packet  in sealed condition as picked up by OPs and when the customer opened the packet and found the  brick in the packet instead of mobile phone as ordered by him but the customer refused to sign the delivery slip and returned the consignment without sign or make any remarks. The OP no.3 reported the matter through email on the same day to the higher authorities of OPs and thereafter returned the consignment to the shipper with the remarks that " Shortage : Short Packing by shipper".  This fact itself has proved that the consignment (purchased mobile phone) was not delivered to the complainant and the same was returned to the OP no.1 which clearly shows unfair trade practice on the part of the OP no.1.   

8.             For the reasons recorded above, we feel that the complainant has fully proved his case by producing the cogent and reliable evidence on record. As such, we allow the complaint and direct the OP no.1 to refund an amount of Rs.35499/- as the ordered mobile set was not delivered to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- being consolidated amount of compensation  on account of mental pain agony and harassment.

9.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                        Announced

                May 19, 2017

 

 

 

 ( Vinod Kumar Gulati)      (Sarita Garg)    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                   Member                      Member                      President

 

 

BBS/-