Lokesh Gupta filed a consumer case on 31 Oct 2018 against M/S. Ebay .in E Bay India Pvt.Ltd. in the New Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/110/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 02 Nov 2018.
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI
(DISTT. NEW DELHI),
‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,
NEW DELHI-110001
Case No.C.C. /110/2015 Dated:
In the matter of:
Lokesh Gupta
S/o Sh. P.L. Gupta
Flat No. 149B, Pocket F, Mayur Vihar Phase-II
New Delhi-110091 …… Complainant
Versus
Ebay.in, E bay India Pvt. Ltd.
6th floor, A wing, Statesman House
Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place
New Delhi & Others ……. Opposite party
NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a mobile phone online from OP and paid a sum of Rs. 12,591/-. It is alleged by the complainant that on 23/10/2014 he received the alleged hand set through courier alongwith the regret letter of the OP for delay in delivering the same. It is alleged by the complainant that on switching the mobile, he found that same is not working and same was a defective one. It is further alleged that despite his complaints and personal phone calls, OP neither replaced the alleged defective hand set nor has refunded the money, hence, this complaint.
2. Consequent upon the receipt of complaint notice was sent to the OPs. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of OP, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 30.04.2015.
3. Complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit. Complainant has also filed copy of the Invoice, copy of the e-mails exchanged between the parties in support of his case.
4. We have heard arguments advanced at the Bar and have perused the record.
5. It is argued on behalf of the complainant that despite making the payment of Rs. 12,591/- to OP, he cannot even use the alleged mobile phone for a single day. Despite repeated complaints neither the mobile was repaired by OP nor the money was refunded to the complainant. Hence, OP is liable to refund the cost of mobile handset in question.
6. From the un-rebutted testimony of the complainant and documents placed on record, we are convinced with the version put forth by complainant. Perusal of the complaint along with annexures shows that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 12,591/- for the hand set but it was found non-working from the date of delivery to the complainant. This act of OP amounts to unfair trade practice.
We therefore hold OP liable for unfair trade practice and direct it as under:
The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order be sent to both parties free of cost by post. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Forum on 31/10/2018.
(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)
PRESIDENT
(NIPUR CHANDNA ) ( H.M. VYAS )
MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.