| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA C.C. No. 519 of 21-10-2016 Decided on : 03-02-2017 Kiran Bansal, aged 54 years W/o Devinder Pal Bansal, R/o H. No. 124, Street No. 3, Green Avenue Bibi Wala Chowk, Bathinda 151 001. …....Complainant Versus Managing Director O/o eBay India Private Limited, 14th Floor, North Block, R. Tech Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai 400 063,Maharashtra. Manager O/o eBay India Private Limited (www.eBay.in), 14th Floor, North Block, R. Tech Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai 400 063,Maharashtra.
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum : Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh. Varun Bansal, A.R. Of complainant For the opposite parties : Exparte. O R D E R M. P. Singh Pahwa, President Kiran Bansal, complainant (here-in-after referred to as 'complainant') has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Managing Director, eBay India Pvt. Ltd., and another (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that her son Tarun Bansal purchased one i Phone S6 Apple for gift to her on her birthday. The mobile hand set was purchased through website www.eBay.in. for Rs. 39,999/-. The payment was made on line by using SBI netbanking facility from account of Tarun Bansal. The opposite parties confirmed the order placed by complainant vide Paisa Pay ID 43324937327 dated 13-08-2016. On 19-8-2016, i Phone 6S purchased by complainant had been delivered to her at her address and she received the same. It is alleged that Tarun Bansal opened the packet and tried to switch on mobile phone. It had not been switched on i.e. “Was in dead condition”. The matter was immediately reported to opposite party No. 1 via claim ID 2245144 dated 19-08-2016. Upon receipt of complaint, opposite parties opened claim under eBay Protection Guarantee vide Claim ID 2245144 dated 26-8-2016 and it advised the complainant to ship back the dead cell phone to seller's address under intimation to opposite parties. Accordingly on 26-08-2016 complainant packed the dead mobile phone and sent it back to seller's address provided by opposite parties and also notified the same to opposite parties by attaching courier slips. On 3-9-2016, the opposite parties revealed that seller is claiming that he has sent good product and the buyer has not sent the product which he had shipped to buyer. The opposite parties intimated and asked seller to submit some photographs of product within 48 hours otherwise the claim will be closed in favour of complainant. The seller has not done any correspondence with opposite parties. Again on 14-09-2016, the opposite parties sent same notice as reminder to seller and asked to provide photographs within 48 hours otherwise claim will be closed in favour of complainant. The seller has never done any correspondence on said issue with opposite parties. It is also alleged that opposite parties are caring each other and harassing the complainant. The opposite parties have not done any solution and harassed the complainant. The complainant sent notice to opposite parties with the request to resolve issue at the earliest or refund money to complainant. The opposite parties without verifying from complainant replied that seller will resend the said dead product back to them. There is no solution for this. It is further pleaded that after few days, complainant received one parcel from seller via Indian Registered Post. When complainant opened the same, he found it empty. Only Ear phones, charger, data cable, pieces of papers with cardboard pieces were present but no mobile phone was received. The complainant immediately notified to opposite parties via e-mail on 7-10-2016 but to no effect. The opposite parties have closed the claim of the complainant on 8-10-2016. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. He has prayed for direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 39,999/- with interest @ 18% p.a.; pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation expenses. Notice of the complaint was sent to opposite parties but none appeared on their behalf. As such exparte proceedings were taken against them. In exparte evidence, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of advertisement (Ex. C-1), photocopy of Check Claim Status (Ex. C-2), photocopy of e-mails (Ex.C-3 to Ex. C-6 and Ex. C-8 to Ex. C-10), photocopy of notice (Ex. C-7), affidavit dated 18-1-2017 of complainant (Ex. C-11), affidavit dated 18-1-2017 of Tarun Bansal (Ex.C-12), photocopy of order statement (Ex. C-13), photocopy of order confirmation (Ex. C-14) and closed evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as set up in the complaint and as detailed above. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contention. Ex.C-13 is the Order Statement which proves that complainant purchased mobile hand set in question online for Rs. 39,999/- through eBay in. Ex. C-2 is the Check Claim Status. As per this document, the mobile was received on 19-8-2016 and complainant intimated on the same day that they have received product in dead condition. It was also intimated that it is useless and be taken back. Ex.C-3 is the e-bill of the opposite parties whereby it was intimated that for resolution of claim, opposite parties requested the complainant to reship the item back to seller and provide proof of despatch copies. It was also intimated that the reimbursement of shipping charges incurred by Complainant will be sent via coupon on their register email address and they can expect to receive it within 7-10 business days. Ex. C-4 proves that on the same day i.e. 26-8-2014, complainant intimated to the opposite parties that he shipped the product and paid Rs. 1680/- as courier charges. Ex. C-5 is another e-mail dated 3-9-2016 sent by the opposite parties to the seller of the product. Vide this e-mail, opposite parties intimated the seller that they have confirmed receipt of item which has been sent to them through DTDC courier but they (seller) have told that they have received duplicate item from the buyer. The opposite parties requested the seller to provide them proof of item not being as described. It was also made clear that this information be provided within 48 hours otherwise they will close the claim in buyer's favour. Ex. C-6 is another e-mail dated 14-9-2016, which proves that opposite parties again issued reminder to the seller for providing proof within 48 hours. Ex. C-8 is the e-mail dated 27-9-2016 issued by the opposite parties to the seller for providing requisite information within 72 hrs. This correspondence between the opposite parties and seller of the product prove that complainant had shipped the product to the seller. Of course the seller has alleged that they have not received the same product but they have failed to provide any proof in this regard to the opposite parties. Ex. C-10 is the e-mail dated 8-10-2016 sent by the opposite parties to the complainant. Vide this e-mail, the opposite parties have intimated the complainant that claim is excluded from eligible transactions under eBay guarantee and the claim falls under non-eligibility criteria. The opposite parties have closed the claim request for refund has been rejected. The earlier correspondence between opposite parties and seller proves that seller has not furnished any proof to the opposite parties as desired by them. In these circumstances, the action of the opposite parties in declining the claim is not justified and it amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The product was purchased by the complainant for Rs. 39,990/-. Thus, she is entitled to the refund of this amount alongwith compensation and cost of litigation. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 2,000/- as cost and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 39,999/- to complainant. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the amount of Rs. 39,999/- will yield interest @ 12% p.a. till realization. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 03-02-2017 (M.P.Singh Pahwa ) President (Jarnail Singh ) Member
| |
