1. The complainant filed a petition praying to pass orders directing the O.Ps to refund the cost of the Mobile handset alon and to pay Rs. 40,000/- towards compensation and Rs 5, 000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. The complainant in the petition submitted that he has purchased a Lava Mobile handset bearing model LAVA Irris pros 30+ vide Challan No. 74 dated 11.5.2015 for Rs. 12,500/-. Just after 2 months of its purchase, the above Mobile set showed several defects. Despite several approaches the defects has not been rectified by the Opposite Parties. Due to unfair trade practice / deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties the complaint suffered mentally, physically and financially.
Despite notice the Opposite Parties neither appeared nor filed their written version as such the Ops set ex-parte vide our order dated 19.10.2015
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 manufacturer-the O.P.No.3 to refund the cost of the mobile of Rs. 12,500/- (Rupees twelve thousand five hundred) only and pay Rs. 5,000/- only to the complainant towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days on receipt of a copy of this order in default, the Opposite Party No-3 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 21st November,2015
