DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/247 of 21.10.2015

                                      Decided on: 21.1.2016

Avinash Kant S/o Sh.Raghbir Singh, H.No.51/1B, Street No.4, Dashmesh Nagar, Tripuri, Patiala-147001(Punjab)

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       M/s Ebay India Pvt.LTd.,14^th Floor, North Block,R-Teck Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai -400 063 (Maharashtra) (India).

2.       Yogi Communications,1/125,Shanker Road, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi-110060, Mobile No.8800368162,Email:

                                                                   …………….Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.A.P.S.Rajput, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member                                  

Present:

For the complainant:       In person

For Op No.2:                   Ex-parte. 

                                         ORDER

A.P.S.RAJPUT, PRESIDENT

1. Complainant, Avinash Kant S/o Sh.Raghbir Singh, H.No.51/1B, Street No.4, Dashmesh Nagar, Tripuri, Patiala, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 11 to  14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2.  The complainant has alledged  that on 20.3.2015 he ordered one Samsung 40” UAeh500HD Led TV for an amount of Rs.24,955/- with one year seller warranty from Ebay India ,Paisa Pay ID 38871797757, the payment of which was made by the complainant through the SBI credit card of his friend namely Mr.Gajraj Singh Rajput to whom the complainant paid back the amount of the same in six installments .
3. On non receipt of the LED TV within the specified period, the complainant contacted Op no.1 for the dispatch of the same. The complainant received a call from Op no.2 that the order of the LED TV is not in the stock and the OP will give him a better/latest model i.e. Samsung 40f5000 full HD Slid LED. It is alleged by the complainant that he received the LED TV on 30.3.2015 vide invoice No.2748 dated 28.3.2015 from Op No.2 with the dealer warranty of one year .It is alleged by the complainant that the screen of the LED TV was found defective i.e. the half screen was in black shade. On 2.10.2015, the complainant approached Op no.2 for the resolution of the issue who told the complainant to send the e-mail ID with the copy of the bill and screen shot of the LED TV, which the complainant had sent on 2.10.2015.On 3.10.2015, Op no.2 through its email confirmed the LED TV to be within warranty period and asked the complainant to send the same on its address at Yogender Sahoo, 1/125, Shanker Road, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi- 110 060, Mobile 8800368162, with an assurance to repair the same within 7-10 days. The complainant  himself handed over the LED TV to the OP no.2 on 10.10.2015. On 18.10.2015, the complainant approached OP no.2 to know about the status of the LED TV but no satisfactory reply was given. Again on 20.10.2015 the complainant called OP no.2 to know about the status of LED TV who replied that the LED TV has not since been repaired and asked the complainant to wait for one month more. Thus the act of the OPs amounted to deficiency of service .The complainant prayed for a  direction to the Ops to pay Rs.24,955/- alongwith interest of the EMIs(6) paid towards the cost of the LED TV; Rs.10,000/- fare of the car and Rs.75000/- as compensation for the harassment and mental tension suffered by the complainant.
4. The cognizance of the complaint was taken against Op no.2, who despite service failed to come present and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.
5. In support of his complaint, the complainant  tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C15 and closed his evidence.
6. The complainant has submitted that  while the said LED Tv was in warranty period its screen stopped working and he approached the OP no.2 for repair of the same being under warranty. The complainant further submitted that the OP no.2 on one pretext or the other started avoiding the complainant whenever he questioned the OP no.2 about the said TV. The complainant pleaded that it has been more than one Month the OP no.2 is not carrying out the repair or replacement of the said TV, despite it being under warranty. The complainant also submitted that he has become frustrated by the negligent act of the OP no.2 and he had to undergo unnecessary mental and physical harassment at the hands of the OP no.2 who had deliberately avoided to appear before this Forum. He further submitted that he be compensated for the act and conduct of the OP no.2 and his prayer be accepted.
7. We have heard the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by him and the oral argument as well as the written submission, it is evident from the invoice i.e Ex.C2 that the said TV was within warranty period.It is also proved from the emails i.e Ex.C4 to ExC6 that the OP no.2 is unable to fulfill the commitment between the parties. The OP no.2 was bound to repair, replace and refund the value received of the said TV, as the defect developed within the warranty period.We are satisfied from the material available on record that the OP no.2 acted in an negligent manner in redressing the grievances of the complainant and he had been deprived of his right.
8. Accordingly in view, of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the OP no.2 had acted in a negligent manner and thereby committed deficiency of service for which the complainant deserves to be compensated. Hence we direct the OP no.2 to replace the defective part in the said TV  within 15 days and in case the same cannot be rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant, then refund the amount of Rs. Rs.24,955/- alongwith interest of the 6 EMIs paid towards the cost of the LED TV. The complainant is also held entitled for compensation on account of mental agony amounting to Rs.6000/- alongwith litigation cost of Rs. 3000/-.The OP no.2 is directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this Order. In case OP no. 2 fails to comply with the same, within the stipulated period, the OP no.2 shall be liable to pay 9 % interest per Month on the aforesaid awarded amount. The present complaint stands  accepted.    

Pronounced

Dated: 21.1.2016

               Sonia Bansal            Neelam Gupta                         A.P.S.Rajput

        Member                 Member                                   President