BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.47 of 2017
Date of Instt. 17.02.2017
Date of Decision:23.01.2018
Amit Sharma aged about 35 years S/o Sh. Ashok Sharma Resident of W.M. 314, Basti Guzan, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
1. M/s eBay India Private Limited, 14th Floor, North Block, R- Tech Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East) Mumbai 400063, Maharastra, India Through its Managing Director.
2. M/s New Zone Computer Trade, Q-57, UGF Vikas Vikhar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi PIN-110059 through its proprietor/authorized signatory Sunil Kumar.
3. Suni Kumar, Authorized Signatory
M/s New Zone Computer Trade Q-57, Upper Ground Floor, Viaks Vihar Manaskunj Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi PIN- 110095 (Mob-8800706041)
..….…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. Vikash Sharma, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
OP No.1 exparte.
OP No.2 and 3 withdrawn.
Order
Harvimal Dogra (Member)
1. The complainant Amit Sharma has filed the present complaint under 'The Consumer Protection Act', 1986 against M/s eBay India Private Limited and other (OPs) on the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with the prayer that the OPs may be directed to refund the cost of LED of Rs.51,200/- + Rs.2700/- for shipping charge + Rs.2000/- as cost of legal notice and Rs.1,00,000/- on account of harassment mental tension, agony and pain alongwith cost of proceedings and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.20,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase of LED till its realization, thus, in total for Rs.1,75,900/- with interest, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the OP No.1 is running the business of online shopping company under the name and style of M/s eBay India Private Limited and used to sell the products of various companies through online shopping and is playing the role of Connector between the proposed buyers and the seller companies. Similarly the OP No.2 and 3 are the proposed seller company and its proprietor, who used to hire the services of the OP No.1 to sell their products through online shopping system. OP No.1 used to give 100% satisfaction of refund and replacement guarantee under the slogan of “eBay Guarantee Don't worry, Buy Happy” to the proposed customers about the products being sold by her through online shopping. That the complainant purchased one LED make Sony of 43” Model Sony Bravia Model W800c” on 04.02.2016 for a sum of Rs.51,200/- from online shopping website of OP No.1 company, which was sold by the OP No.1, by arranging the same from OP No.2 and 3, who is the original seller and they sold the LED mentioned above through mediation of OP No.1. That at the time of purchase of the said LED, the OP No.2 gave the guarantee for a period of one year and gave the assurance to the complainant that in case of any defect in the LED, the company will repair/replace the same and will remove the defects, if any at free of costs. That after few days of the purchase of the said LED, the complainant observed and found that there is some manufacturing defect in the LED sent by the OPs and same is quite defective and is not according to the standard and quality of Sony company as the speakers of the said LED were not working properly and there is some manufacturing defect in it. As such, during the warranty/guaranty period, the complainant immediately informed the OP No.1 through mail dated 01.03.2016 regarding the said defects and also informed the OP No.2 and 3 telephonically. That on receipt of the complaint, the OP No.1 called upon the complainant to return the LED through Shipment and they further gave surety that the OP No.1 is responsible for the product and they will replace the product at the earliest and also assured that the OP No.1 will also repay the shipping charges for returning the product. Thus on the assurance of OPs, the complainant shipped back the product on 11.04.2016 to OP No.2 as per the instructions No.1 through Blue Dart Courier Service on payment of shipping charges of Rs.2700/-. The OP No.2 and 3 received the above defective LED, but thereafter the OPs stop receiving the phone calls of the complainant and started lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. That on 16.04.2016, the OP No.2, re-shipped the same LED back to the complainant without making any repair or replacement as there has been no change in the defect nor any payment of shipment charges were paid to the complainant which they assured to repay to the complainant. That after the re-shipment of LED by the OP No.2, it was noticed by the complainant that instead of removal of persisting manufacturing defects in speakers, the LED has developed another defect i.e. the picture of the screen becomes dark and a red strap would automatically appear on screen and some times it also becomes blur. That the complainant again contacted the OPs and made a complaints and emails regarding the said defects in LED and in response to that the OP No.2 sent what's app message from Mobile No.88007-06041 and shifted all its liability upon the OP No.1 by alleging that “The LED got damaged when OP No.1 shipped LED to the complainant and claimed that the seller would not replace or repair their LED”. The complainant also approached to the OP No.1 in this regard but the OP No.1 also stop receiving the phone calls of the complainant and even did not give any response to the emails of the complainant. That the OPs has willfully sold a defective product to the complainant having manufacturing defects and had also refused to replace the same. Due to the act and conducts of the OPs, the complainant had suffered a great mental tension, financial loss as well as harassment as inspite of regular contacting the OPs and requesting them time and again to get the LED repaired/replaced the OP failed to do so. The complainant also got served a legal notice dated 06.07.2016 upon the OPs, but all in vain, hence this complaint.
3. After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the OPs, but despite service OP No.1 failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte, whereas complaint against OP No.2 and 3 was dismissed as withdrawn.
4. In order to prove his exparte claim, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and then closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant, it reveals that the complainant Amit Sharma purchased one LED make SONY of 43” Model “Sony Bravia Model W800c” from online shopping website of OP No.1 Company i.e. ebay.in, vide Invoice No.7442 dated 08.02.2016 for Rs.51,174/-, copy of the Retail Invoice is Ex.C2. The complainant was also given the guaranty for the period of one year, which is Ex.C-4. That after the purchase of the said LED, the complainant found that the speakers of the LED were not working properly, so the complainant informed the OP No.1 through email and also informed OP No.2 through telephonically. The OP No.1 asked the complainant to return the LED through shipment and the complainant shipped back the product on 11.04.2016 to OP No.2 by the payment of shipping charges of 2700/-. On 16.04.2016, the OP No.2 returned the LED to the complainant without making any repair or replacement, the speaker problem was not solved and other defect sprang up in the LED i.e. the picture of the screen become dark and the red strap would automatically appear on the screen and some times it becomes blur.
7. It is evident from the perusal of the entire material on the record that LED has inherent manufacturing defect, which could not be rectified by the OPs, moreover, the OPs showed their inability to repair it, it appears that the present LED in question is beyond repair, the defect was not removed and other defect also occurred in LED. So, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum finds force in the contention of the complainant and finds deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OPs. Moreover, despite service, OP No.1 failed to come forward and evidence led by the complainant has remained un-rebutted and un-challenged, for the above reason as stated above.
8. So, accordingly, we observed that the LED is beyond repair and the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount of LED i.e. Rs.51,174/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase of the LED, till realization and OP No.1 is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
23.01.2018 Member President
