Haryana

Panchkula

CC/191/2016

ARU SINGLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

EBAY INDIA PVT.LTD.& ANOTHER. - Opp.Party(s)

D.K.SINGLA.

12 Jul 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	191 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	25.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	12.07.2017

                                                                                          

Ms.Aru Singla through her father and natural guardian Sh.Amit Singla, R/o House No.2, Sector-18, Panchkula.

 

                                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       eBay India Private Ltd., through its Managing Director, 14^th Floor, North Block, R-Tech Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai400063, India.

2.       Shop No.47.com (A unit of SMPL) through its Managing Director, Basavangudi, Bangalore, Karnataka.

                                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person. 

                             Ops No.1 and 2 already ex-parte.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that after seeing advertisement, she booked a Micromax Canvas Silver 5 (Super Slim) Q450 Black on 03.12.2015 for an amount of Rs.10,818/- which was to be paid at the time of delivery with the Op No.1 who also assured that they would provide the best services if need be at any point of time. The Op No.1 vide email dated 03.12.2015 had confirmed the purchase of product & colour and also mentioned the estimate date of delivery i.e. 10.12.2015. On 04.12.2015, the complainant was informed through email that the mobile in question had been dispatched to the complainant and the payment had to be made at the time of delivery through cash. On 07.12.2015, the complainant took the delivery of the mobile phone by Op No.2 i.e. delivery agency of Op No.1. Thereafter, the complainant checked the product and found that the same was in Golden colour instead of Black colour. Moreover, in the invoice dated 04.12.2015, the address was mentioned as House No.1541, Sector-7C, Chandigarh instead of House No.2, Sector-18, Panchkula whereas the Op  No.1 vide mail dated 03.12.2015 had confirmed the address of the complainant. The complainant raised the objection but the delivery boy assured that the same could be raised with the Op No.1. Then the complainant raised her objection with Op No.1 that she had received the mobile phone of golden colour instead of black colour and requested the Op No.1 to change the colour. On 09.12.2015, the complainant received an email from Op No.1 whereby the OP NO.1 assured the complainant that they would update the status shortly. On the assurance of OP No.1, the complainant was under impression that the Op No.1 would replace the product within a short period of time but to no avail. Thereafter, the complainant requested the Op No.1 through emails dated 15.12.2015 & 17.12.2015 and also sent the photographs of the mobile phone vide email dated 19.12.2015, 20.12.2015 and 21.12.2015 but to no avail. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the customer care of Op No.1 on their toll free number and requested many times to change the colour of mobile or to credit the amount of Rs.10,818/- in her account but to no avail. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the Op No.1 through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.1. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 26.10.2016.
3. Notice was issued to the Op No.2 through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.2. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 09.05.2017.
4. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed his evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant appearing in person and have also perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the complainant booked a Micromax Canvas Silver 5 (Super Slim) Q450 Black on 03.12.2015 for an amount of Rs.10,818/- (Annexure C-1) on COD basis i.e. Cash on Delivery and the same was delivered to her on 07.12.2015. The grievance of the complainant is that the received mobile phone was in golden colour instead of black colour whereas the Op No.1 vide email dated 03.12.2015 (Annexure C-2) had also confirmed the purchase of product & colour. Moreover, the OP No.1 has mentioned the wrong address of the complainant in the retail invoice dated 04.12.2015 i.e. House No.1541, Sector-7C, Chandigarh instead of House No.2, Sector-18, Panchkula (Annexure C-3) after confirming the same through email. The complainant raised the objection with Op No.1 that she had received the mobile phone of golden colour instead of black colour and requested the Op No.1 to change of colour. The OP NO.1 vide mail dated 09.12.2015 assured the complainant that they would update the status shortly but thereafter, the Op No.1 became silent. Thereafter, the complainant requested the Op No.1 through emails dated 15.12.2015 & 17.12.2015 and also sent the photographs of the mobile phone vide email dated 19.12.2015, 20.12.2015 and 21.12.2015 (Annexure C-6) but even after the Op No.1 did not do anything to replace the mobile phone of the complainant. The complainant also contacted the customer care of Op No.1 on their toll free number and requested many times to change the colour of mobile or to credit the amount of Rs.10,818/- in her account.
7. Moreover, the OPs No.1 and 2 chose not to appear before this Forum and was proceeded ex-parte. Therefore, the evidence produced by the complainant and allegations leveled by him in the complaint, which are supported with duly sworn affidavit has gone unrebutted. Thus, in the absence of Ops, it is believed that the Ops have nothing to say against the allegations of the complainant.
8. In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint against the Ops. The Ops are jointly and severally directed as under:-

a)       To refund Rs.10,818/- paid by the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of receipt of amount. The complainant is directed to return the product alongwith accessories received by her to the Ops.

b)      To pay an amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service and cost of litigation.

9. Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

12.07.2017 JAGMOHAN SINGH     ANITA KAPOOR    DHARAM PAL

                      MEMBER                       MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                          

                                                     DHARAM PAL 

                                                     PRESIDENT