Orissa

Malkangiri

CC/170/2014

S. Srilekha, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Global IT City, - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/170/2014
( Date of Filing : 10 Nov 2014 )
 
1. S. Srilekha,
aged about 20 years, Daughter of S. Jogeshwara Rao of Veterinary Street, Malkangiri, Post/Dist. Malkangiri.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Global IT City,
Main Road, Malkangiri, Odisha.
2. Excellent Care,
Park Street, Berhampur, Dist. Ganjam.
3. Managing Director, Sony India Pvt. Limited,
A-31, 2nd Floor, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110005.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Ashok Kumar Pattnaik PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Bhavani Acharya MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 30 Jan 2015
Final Order / Judgement

 

1.         The complainant filed a petition praying to pass an order directing the O.Ps. to pay a sum of Rs. 19,000/-  towards pecuniary loss, 20,000/- towards mental agony, Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses other relief.

2.         The complainant in the petition submitted that he purchased a Sony Xperia M2 mobile phone vide IMEI-1. 35277406-665509-7, IMEI-2. 35277406-665510-5 on 1.102014 vide invoice No. 25 dated 01.10.2014 for Rs. 19,000/-. On the same day immediate after its purchase the complainant in presence of OP No-1 noticed that the phone is not supporting for the 2nd SIM card as such which has not having proper slot to insert the 2nd SIM. The complainant immediately consulted the OP nO-2 for Guidance and remedy who rejected the request of the complainant by saying that the same is out of warranty. Due to unfair trade practice/deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties the complaint took shelter of this forum for proper redressal of her grievances.

            Upon notice the Opposite Party No-2 appeared one and thereafter remained absent. Despite notice Op-1 & 3 neither appeared nor filed their written version to the complainant as such all the Opposite Parties set ex-parte.

            In course of hearing we gone through the complaint petition and affidavit and  we presumed that sue to fault on their part the Ops did not contest the case as admitted the allegation of the complainant.

  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”.

Therefore, the un-rebutted arguments left no corner to disbelieve the complaint. Taking consideration the undisputed pleadings, we are inclined to pass order in favour of the complainant, directing the OP No.2 to refund  19,000/- (Rupees Nine thousand only) the cost of the mobile to the complainant along with  RS. 5,000/- (Five thousand only)  towards compensation for harassment Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days on receipt of copy of this order in default, the Opposite Party No-2 is liable to pay Rs. 50/- per day of default till its realization.

 Copy of the order be communicate to the parties free of cost.

Pronounced in open Court on  30th January, 2015.

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Ashok Kumar Pattnaik]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Bhavani Acharya]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.