Succinctly put, the complainant had filed the complaint regarding defective Laptop bearing model no. Dell-Ins-15r-Ci3, 4GB, 500 GB , DOS Black SN SN-6H7DVQ1 supplied to the complaint duly purchased vide retail invoice No. GIS/RI/401 dated 25-Aug-2011 as per Exibit-C/1 for consideration amount of Rs.40,000/- along with warranty card at Exibit-C/2 of the Opposite Party No-1. The said Laptop was purchased by the complainant for the use of his son who is a student of Engineering at Semiliguda,Koraput. Two months of its use the Laptop seized its functioning and became defunct, immediately the complainant informed the matter to the Op-1 through telephonic message and on his direction handed over to the Op-2 for its repair and rectification on the other hand after one and half months of its deposit, the Opposite Parties have returned the Laptop without any repair and rectification. During guarantee period such problems appeared and Ops failed to get the laptop be repaired which the OP-1 had promised to do so at the time of sale.
Due notice was sent to the Opposite party No-1 by Flyking Courier service as per consignment No.102007 dated 31.12.2011. Despite notice and sufficient opportunities, the OP No-1 neither appeared nor filed his written version hence he set ex-parte vide our order dated 23.05.2013. Being noticed the Opposite Party No.2 filed his counter version and denied his liability by taking some vague plea.
We are fortified by a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in the matter of Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dr. Zahid Hussain Gillari and other reported in 2003 CTJ 953(CP) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that “it is well settled that where the averments made in the complaint are un-rebutted, the presumption is that the averments are true and correct.”
We come across a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vidya Dhar-versus-Munkif Rao and another reported in 1992(2) Civil Court Cases at page-91 held that “if a party did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal, then adverse inference should drawn against the party for not rebutting the evidence”.
In this regard, as per 2003(2) CPC 122 (SC) Punjab, Chandigarh titled as M/s Bawa Industries(Registered) Vs. Vipan Oil Extraction Private Limited it has held that “Where defect occurs within warranty it amounts to deficiency in service.”
We have gone through the contents of the complainant and keeping in view the unrebutted evidence of complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to refund Rs.40,000/- the cost of the laptop along with Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) towards compensation for harassment and Rs.2,000/- (two thousand only) towards the litigation expenses within 30 days on receipt of this order failing which the Op-1 is liable to pay @18% interest per annum on the total sum from the date of this order till its realization. On receipt of the awarded amount, complainant is directed to return the defective laptop to the Opposite Patty No-1.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.
Pronounced in open Court on 12th June, 2013.
