Delhi

New Delhi

CC/371/2017

Anoop Kumar Haswani - Complainant(s)

Versus

E Bay India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

01 Feb 2019

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                            (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                                         ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                                         NEW DELHI-110001

 

CC.No./371/2017                                              Dated:

In the matter

Anoop Haswani

38/11,3^rd Floor, East Patel Nagar

New Delhi-110008

..…Complainant

 

                                                 Versus

 

 

Ebay India pvt Ltd

14^th Floor, North Block, RTech Park

Western Express Highway

Goregaon (East) Mumbai

 Pincode-400063, Maharashtra

 

Mr. Zeeshan Rashid

122 C, Karl Marx Sarani Road

Opposite  five star market

Kolkata700023

 

Apple India Pvt Ltd

19^th Floor Concorde Tower C

UB City No-24, Vittal Mallaya Road

Bangalore-560001

                                                                                                             …..Opposite Party

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H.M. VYAS-MEMBER

 

                                                                ORDER

                                                 

            A complaint has been filed that alleging the complainant pay Rs27,989/- through HDFC card to e bay Pvt  Ltd  to purchase, an I-Phone Apple 6. He received I- Phone serial no. F17NFJ5G5MG.CONFIG. IPHONE 6 MM64G GREY by courier which was later noticed to be assembled by another company. It is alleged that unit condition is also used, damaged and give wrong and damaged product. The complainant then went to “Unicorn Service Centre” at pacific mall, Subhash Nagar. The service centre examined the product and told that it was not I-Phone Apple product and they also gave certificate regarding the I-Phone. Prayer to cancel the selling license of e bay; harassment penalty claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- ; replacement of new I-Phone Apple 6; and to keep seller behind the lock up made.

            All the OPs were noticed and only OP-3 appeared. OP-1 & 2 were proceeded ex-parte on 20.11.2017. OP-3 i.e. Apple India Pvt Ltd contested the complaint.

            The OP-3 filed written statement and denied all allegations and stated that the I-Phone sold in India by the OP-3 are through their authorized dealer /re-sellers are equipped with cutting edge technology and utmost customer satisfaction. It is however stated that the complainant visited the authorized service centre of OP-3 where it was detected that it was non Apple device i.e. the alleged mobile did not match the warranty of OP-3. Further inspection of its records it was found that I- Phone 6 bearing IMEI no. 354406065239999 serial no., F17NFJE5G5MG was originally sold on 14.09.2014 to someone. It clearly implies that this was a second hand refurbished product which was sold to the complainant by the OP-1 and OP-2. It is also stated in the written statement that OP-3 does not sell any non Apple product in the market. The documents of the complainant clearly show the findings of the authorized service provider and the print out of IMEI check done by complainant that the product was out of warranty of the OP-3.

           

 

Further it is stated that the onus to prove deficiency against OP-3 lies on the complainant, which has not been substantiate with any supporting documents. It is however, stated that the OP-1 and OP-2 have mislead the complainant and sold such a product and it tantamount to unfair trade practice. Stating that OP-1 and OP-2 are not working for OP-3 nor there is any privity of contract, therefore, OP-3 is not liable.

            The complainant and OP-3 have filed their respective evidence by way of affidavit. The complainant has filed written arguments.

            We have considered the material before us and the arguments with relevant provisions of law.

            From the forgoing facts wherein the OP-3 has admitted that the I-Phone was initially sold in the year 2014 to someone, as such there remains no ambiguity that the I-Phone sent/ supplied by e bay was an old device as the same has been confirmed by the authorized service centre of OP-3. Since OP-1 and    OP-2 have been proceeded ex-parte on 20.11.2017 by the predecessor bench, as such the testimony of the complainant has remained and without any doubt. Hence the same is accepted.

            In these circumstances we hold the OP-1 to be deficient in service and adopted unfair trade practice causing financial loss to the complainant beside physical and mental agony. We therefore, award a sum of Rs. 27,989/- to the complainant besides exemplary compensation of Rs. 15,000/- against the OP-1 for mental and physical agony including litigation cost.

 

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OPs 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 of Rs. 27,989/–.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced in open Forum on­­­­­  01/02/2019. 

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

 

 (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                  PRESIDENT

 

          (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                               (H M VYAS)

                               MEMBER                                                                           MEMBER