ORDER
Per Sh. RakeshKapoor , President
    The complainant purchased a mobile make Samsung by the name
Samsung Galaxy Note 3 having IMEI No. 351540060491354 from OP1 for a
sum of Rs31,5000/- against bill no. 1129 dated 09-1-2015.  It is
alleged by the complainant that within a few days of purchase, the
handset started showing problems such as –dead being devoid of charge.
Not responding to signal or call. Jarring noise in th ear phone etc.
Being disappointed by the performance of the aforesaid mobile,
complainant approached Ops to rectify the defect.  It is neither
alleged by the complainant that the Ops instead of rectifying the
defect, asked the complainant to contact the  Samsung Company for the
redressal of his grievance. Thereafter , complainant visited the
service centre of the Samsung company at Ashok Vihar, Delhi , to get
his mobile checked.  The mechanic at the service centre gave report to
the complainant that the aforesaid mobile was already activated on
31.8.2014 and is patently defective one.  The complainant armed with
the report of the service centre went to the shop of Ops and asked
them  as to how they had sold the defective and an old mobile to him?
 Th Ops instead of admitting to their mistake asked the complainant to
leave the shop and threatened him with dire consequences.
   It is further alleged by the complainant that seeing no hope of
getting his grievance redressed , he loadged a complaint with the
police Karol Bagh on 23/5/2015 but all in vain.  The complainant also
sent a legal notice to the Ops, but till date they had not replied or
complied with the same.  The complainant , therefore, approached this
forum for the redressal of his grievance.
  Notices of the complaint were sent to the Ops through regd. Ad.Post
on 1-6-2015 .  The notices were not received back unservedand ,
therefore, service was presumed to have been effected on the Ops.
Since, none had appeared for the Ops, they were ordered to be
proceeded with ex-parte.
   We have heard arguments advanced at bar and have persued the record.
The complainant has placed on record a copy of the bill dated
09-1-2015. Copy of the police complaint dated 23-01-2015. Copy of the
e-mail, which shows that the complainant had purchased mobile from the
OP and it is a defective one.
   Before filing this complaint, the complainant had served legal
notice dated 19-9-2015 on the Ops .  The Ops had failed to comply with
or refute the allegations leveled in the notice  It has been held in a
number of cases that where serious allegations have been leveled
against the noticee and the noticee simply ignores the same and does
not refute the allegations, a presumption can be raised that the
allegations made in the notice were true. (See KaluramVsSita Ram 1980
RLR (Note 44) and Metro Polis Travels VsSumitkalra& Another 98 (2002)
DLJ 573 (DB).    The present case is one where a presumption needs to
be drawn in favour of the complainant.  From the unrebutted testimony
of the complainant as well as the documents placed on record , we are
convinced that the story put forth by the complainant is true. We hold
OP1 guilty of deficiency in services and direct it as under:-
1. To refund  to the complainant a sum of Rs. 31,500/- (cost of mobile)
2. To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as a compensation.
3. To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.

The OP1 shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date
of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on
the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  IF the OP1 fails to comply
with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution
of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.
    File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................