We propose to dispose of this complaint on the basis of the complaint petition of the complainant as the opposite party has failed to represent its case. Heard the complainant. The Substance of the complaint is that on 08.06.2012 the Complainant has purchased one Exide Battery from the shop of the opposite party No-1 on payment of Rs. 11,800/- as per retail invoice No. 64 dated 08.06.2012 with 36 months warranty from the date of sale. After One and half years of its use the said battery stopped its functioning by not receiving the charges as a result of which the complainant could not use the same. It is also stated that the grievance was brought to the notice of the opposite parties and that the same was not attended to that Consumer’s interest has not received due consideration at the level of the opposite parties and hence the present complainant.
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 pleadings and gone through the record carefully. Further, despite notice and ample opportunities, the Ops did not choose to file their counter version in this case. Since the Opp. Parties did not file any counter to the version of the complainant. We fell that the version of the complainant can not be disbelieved as there was no averment to the contrary or any evidence adduced by the Opp. Parties in rebuttal. It appears that 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 Versus 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 India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dr. Zahid Hussain Gillari 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 that complaint 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 to the relief. Hence, it is ordered that:-
ORDER
WE DIRECT THE Opposite Party-2 to refund Rs. 11,800/- the cost of the battery and shall pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant for causing harassment. We further direct the Opposite Party No-2 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost.
The Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of a 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 invoking Section 25 & 27 of C.P. Act, 1986.
The complainant is allowed to the extent indicated above.
Supply free copy to the parties as per rules.
Delivered on this the 29th December,2014.
