Orissa

Malkangiri

132/2015

Sri Arun Kumar Patnaik. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop. Air Telecom, - Opp.Party(s)

self

10 Dec 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. 132/2015
( Date of Filing : 16 Oct 2015 )
 
1. Sri Arun Kumar Patnaik.
Chidananda Street, Malkangiri, PS/Dist. Malkangiri, Odisha.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Prop. Air Telecom,
NAC office Road, Malkangiri-764045, PS/Dist. Malkangiri, Odisha.
2. Area Chief Executive, M/S UD Steel Solution Pvt. Limited,
Plot No.687/22365, Nayapalli Jaydev Vihar, Ekamra Kanan Park (Andhra Bank), Bhubaneswar-751015.
3. Chief Executive/Managing Disrector, M/S UD Steel Solution Pvt. Limited,
333-AM Jessor Road, Flat G (b), Ground Floor, Sagarika Appartment, Kolkata.
4. Managing Director/Chief Executive, M/S SYNTECH TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.,
F-2, Block No-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
............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. 5,900/-  the cost of the Mobile handset and to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation and  Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.

2.         The complainant in the petition submitted that he purchased a GIONNE Mobile hand set bearing Model No- P2S and paid Rs. 5,900.00 (Rupees Five thousand and nine 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 Invoice No. 1433 dated  5.1.2015 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&4 through  registered post. 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  OP No. 1,2,3&4 jointly and severally  refund Rs. 5,900.00 (Rupees five thousand nine hundred)  only the cost of the Mobile and pay RS. 5,000/- (Five thousand only) to the complainant towards  compensation for harassment and pay Rs. 2000/- towards litigation expenses within 30 days on receipt of copy of this order in default, the Opposite Party No-1,2,3&4 are liable to pay Rs. 50/- per day of delay 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.