Haryana

Panchkula

CC/105/2015

PANKAJ KATARIA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S E-BAY. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

05 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

 

                                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	105 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	08.06.2015
Date of Decision	:	05.11.2015

                                                                                            

Pankaj Katia s/o Sh.Pawan K.Katia r/o #7 Sector 7 Panchkula (Haryana)

 

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. M/s E-bay in through its Managing Director having its office at 14^th Floor, North Block, R Tech Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063.
2. M/s Paisapay through its Managing Director/Manager, having its office at 14^th Floor North Block, R.Tech Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon East Mumbai-400063.

                                                                            ….Opposite Parties

 

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

 

Before:                 Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

               Ops are ex-parte.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal,  President)

 

1. The complaint has been filed by complainant with the averments that the Ops are doing the business of agent-ship by providing a platform between the consumers and the sellers through online. On 09.03.2015 he placed an order for purchase of laptop make Dell Inspiron 3542, 4^th Gen, i3, 4GB Ram, 500 GB Hdd bearing product No.25183945754 and made the payment to the tune of Rs.28490/- , as full and final including shipment and taxes, through debit card of his wife at Punjab National Bank, Manimajra Branch (UT).  The complainant thereafter sent the demanded documents through e-mail to the OP No.2 but thereafter he was informed about rejection of payment through another e-mail dated 11.03.2015. The complainant was also informed to use another method for the payment. The complainant kept on contacting the OP No.1 then he came to know that entire order has been cancelled and the payment would be refunded in the same account from where the amount was sent.  On 23.03.2015, the complainant received another e-mail whereby it was informed that the payment for the above captioned item has not been received during the past 13 days and accordingly the transaction is cancelled. On this, the complainant contacted OP No.1 where again it was informed to him that the payment is being processed. On 13.04.2015, the complainant further sent the requisite copy of statement of account wherefrom the transaction had been done to the Ops as per their demand made on 12.04.2015.  The complainant kept on waiting for payment and on 24.04.2015 it was intimated to him that the payment would not be released under any circumstances.  The Ops did not refund the payment despite serving of legal notice.  This act and conduct on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit and documents Annexure CA, Annexure C1 to Annexure C12.
2. The Ops did not appear before this Forum despite notice sent through registered post, therefore,  the Ops were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.08.2015.
3. We have heard the complainant and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
4. The complainant has come with a plea that he had placed an order for purchase of laptop through online shopping and also deposited the cost thereof but the Ops have neither sent the averred product nor refund the amount despite the fact that the order placed by him was cancelled/ rejected.  In support of his plea he has placed on file his duly sworn affidavit Annexure CA besides documents  Annexure C1 to Annexure C12. Annexure C1 e-mail sent by the Ops to the complainant reveals that the complainant was assured for the shipment of purchased laptop within 72-96 hours after confirming the payment. The complainant had sent the scanned copy of Credit/Debit Card (Annexure C3) to the Ops as per their demand (Annexure C2).  The Ops intimated the complainant about rejection and cancellation of the order placed by him through Annexure C4 and Annexure C5.  Vide Annexure C6 the complainant requested the Ops for the refund of the debited  amount but instead of refunding the said amount the Ops through Annexure C7 assured the complainant for resolving of queries within 24 to 48 hours. It is evident from Annexure C10 i.e. copy of account statement wherefrom the amount was received/withdrawn by the Ops qua the order placed by the complainant. Feeling aggrieved through the hands of the Ops the complainant got served a legal notice Annexure C8 upon the Ops. On one hand the Ops have received the amount of Rs.28,490/- on 09.03.2015 and on the other hand they have denied receiving  the payment vide Annexure C9 (copy of e-mail sent by the Ops to the complainant). The complainant after running from pillar to post was left with no alternate but to file the present complaint which was filed on 08.06.2015. The Ops have settled the matter with the complainant on 26.07.2015 and the complainant had received the payment under protest as shown in Annexure C12. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Online shopping is a form of electronic commerce which allows consumers to directly buy goods or services from a seller over the Internet using a web browser but now-a-days online shopping becomes more and more commonplace as the number of online scams is also increasing.  In the present case had the complainant not been the vigilant person then there was every possibility on increasing of another online scam. The Ops did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Ops despite notice shows that it has nothing to say in its defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same are accepted as correct and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is proved.
5. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Ops are directed as under:-

1. To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.

 

                   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

05.11.2015           S.P.ATTRI       ANITA KAPOOR       DHARAM PAL

                             MEMBER        MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

 

 

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

 

    

                                 

                                                          DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT