Orissa

Malkangiri

64/2014

Sri Bijaya Kumar Senapati, S/o- Jura Senapati, - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

self

28 Jun 2014

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. 64/2014
( Date of Filing : 10 Mar 2014 )
 
1. Sri Bijaya Kumar Senapati, S/o- Jura Senapati,
Durgagudi Street, Malkangiri Ps/Dist-Malkangiri, Odisha.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Porp.M/S Quality Store
Main Road, Malkangiri, Ps/Dist-Malakngiri, Odisha.
2. Managing Director, Samsung Electronics India Ltd.,
A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-Oprative Industrial Estate, New Delhi.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Ashok Kumar Pattnaik PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Bhavani Acharya MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 28 Jun 2014
Final Order / Judgement

 

  1. The complainant filed a petition praying to pass orders directing the O.Ps to refund the cost of the Mobile to the complainant and to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
  1. The complainant in the petition submitted that he purchased a Samsung Mobile phone bearing Model No. Galaxy Core GT-I 8262 IMEI No.357089/05/005889/2* and  IMEI No. 35090/05/005889/0*  and paid Rs. 14,000/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand) to the Opposite party No-1 vide invoice No. 39733 dated 14.08.2013 along with warranty certificate. After months of its purchase, the complainant found defect and brought to the knowledge of OP. No.1 towards the rectification of defects and handed over the Mobile to the OP No-1 but after one month of its deposit the OP-1 retuned the said mobile to the complainant after claiming rectification of defects. Thereafter, when the complainant use3d the Mobile again the mobile hand set showed defects for which the complainant contacted the OP No-1 who disclosed that the mobile set suffers from inherent manufacturing defects and the same could not be rectified on further repair.  Due to unfair trade practice/deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties the complainant suffered mentally, physically and financially.

On notice the Op-1appeared through his Counsel and filed written version. The OP No-2 appeared through his Counsel but did not choose to file his written version.

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  OP No.2 to refund Rs. 14,000/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand only) the cost of the mobile and RS. 5,000/- (Five thousand only) as compensation and 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  till its realization. Copy of the order be communicate to the parties free of cost.

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

Pronounced in open Court on 28th June, 2014.

 
 
[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.