We propose to dispose of this complaint on the basis of the complaint petition of the complainant as Opposite party has failed to represent its case. Heard the complainant. The substance of the complaint is that the Complainant has purchased Su-Kam battery its type is MCOS150AH Serial No. 02301A 5219251 2121333 for Rs. 17,000/- from the shop of the opposite party No-1 on 26.12.2013. After 10 months of its purchase, the said battery stopped its functioning by not receiving the charge as a result of which the complainant deprived of to get its utility it is also stated that the grievance was brought to the notice opposite parties yielded no result. Hence, the present complaint.
Despite notice the Opposite Parties neither appeared nor filed their written version. Hence the Op-1 & 2 were set ex-parte.
Decision with reasons
Heard the complainant in course of hearing. Perused the pleading and gone through the record carefully. Further, despite notice and ample opportunities, the Ops did not choose to file their written version in this case. Since the Opp. Parties did not file any counter to the version of the version of the contrary or any evidence adduced by the Opp. Parties in rebuttal. It appears that the claim of the claimant is admitted by the Opposite Parties. We have come across a decision delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 1992 (2) Civil Court Cases page-91 S.C. in case titled vidya Dhar Munkif Rao & Another, wherein the Hon’ble Court held, if a party did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal, then adverse inference should drawn against the party for not rebutting the evidence. We are fortified by a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in the matter of Fiat Insia Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dr. Zahid Hussain Gillar and others 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”.
Keeping in view the above facts and referred case laws, which are applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, we have come to the conclusion is tenable. We find that the Opposite Party No-2 is deficient in service and committed unfair trade practice in this case for which the complainant is entitled relief. Hence it is ordered that :
ORDER
We direct the Opposite Party -2 shall pay Compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant for causing harassment. We further direct the Opposite Party No-2 to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost.
The Order shall be complied with 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In default, the Opposite Party No-2 is liable to pay Rs. 50/- per day of delay from the date of order till its realization. The complainant is at liberty to execute the same by inviking Section 25 & 27 of C.P. Act, 1986.
The Complainant is allowed to the extent indicated above.
Supply free copy to each party as per rules.
Delivered on this the 30th April, 2015.
