Orissa

Malkangiri

131/2015

Amaresh Kumar Mahunta, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Quality Store, - Opp.Party(s)

self

10 Dec 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. 131/2015
( Date of Filing : 16 Oct 2015 )
 
1. Amaresh Kumar Mahunta,
At/Po/Dist-Malkangiri, Odisha.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/S. Quality Store,
Main Road, Malkangiri, Odisha.
2. Karbonn Mobiles, United Telemarkeks through its C.M.D
39/13 off 7th main Appareddyplay HAL 2nd stage, Indira, Nagar, Bangalore-560038.
3. Karbon Mobile, Jaina Marketing & Associates,
through the Autforised singnatory, Ho. D-170, Near D.D. Motors, Okhla, OKHALA Industrial Area Phase-I, Delhi-110020.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Ashok Kumar Pattnaik PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Bhavani Acharya MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 10 Dec 2015
Final Order / Judgement

 

1.         The complainant filed a petition praying to pass orders directing the O.Ps either to replace the defectives handset or to refunds Rs. 1,400/-  the cost of the Mobile handset and to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and  Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.

2.         The complainant in the petition submitted that he purchased a Carbonn  Mobile hand set bearing Model No-  K 22 IMEI No. 1-911108702557702 and paid Rs. 1,400 (Rupees One thousand and four hundred) only towards the cost of the said mobile handset and accordingly the OP No.1 the dealer/retailer has granted a printed Money receipt vide retail Invoice No. 6615 dated  20.10.2014 along with warranty certificate in favour of the complainant. Just Seven months after its purchase, the above Mobile set showed several defects. The complainant approached both the Ops time and again yielded no result. Due to unfair trade practice/deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties the complainant suffered mentally, physically and financially.

Notice served on the OP-1 through personal service. Notice to the OP No-2 & 3 through  registered post. Notice sent to the OP-3 has retuned back with postal remark as “Refused”.  Despite notice the Opposite Parties neither appeared nor filed their  written version as such did the Ops set ex-parte.

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 documentary evidence and pleadings, we are inclined to pass order in favour of the complainant, directing the  Manufacturing the OP No. 2 & 3 to refund Rs. 1400.00 (Rupees One thousand four hundred)  only the cost of the Mobile and to pay RS. 5,000/- (Five thousand only) toward compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards the litigation expensed to the complainant within 30 days on receipt of copy of this order in default, the Opposite Party No-2&3 are liable to pay Rs. 50/- per day of dealy till its realization. Copy of the order is communicated to the parties free of cost.

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

Pronounced in open Court on 10th  December, 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.