Orissa

Malkangiri

90/2015

Prafulla Dalai, - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

self

26 Oct 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. 90/2015
( Date of Filing : 17 Aug 2015 )
 
1. Prafulla Dalai,
aged about 45 years, S/O-Sri Lakhan Dalai, At.Durgagudi street, Dist-Malkangiri, Odisha.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Prop. M/S Quality Store,
Main Road, Malkangiri, Odisha.
2. Managing Director, Samsung Electronics, India Ltd.
A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Ashok Kumar Pattnaik PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Bhavani Acharya MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 26 Oct 2015
Final Order / Judgement

1.       The complainant filed a petition praying to pass orders directing the O.Ps to  deliver a new defect free same model handset or refund 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 Samsung Mobile hand set from the OP No-1 bearing Model No.Samsung G-355 EMEI No. 354799/06/531808/0*  and paid Rs 8,500/- (Rupees  Eight thousand five hundred) only towards the cost of the said mobile handset and accordingly the OP No.1 granted a printed Money receipt vide No. 586439 dated 13.10..2014 along with warranty certificate in favour of the complainant. Seven month  after its purchase, the complainant found defect and brought to the knowledge of O.P.No.1 towards the rectification of defects and handed over the Mobile to the OP No-1 who  kept the mobile with him for one month  and returned the same by saying that the defects of the mobile has beeen rectified. On using the said saet again showed same defects for which the complainant again met the OP No-1 who disclosed that the  set suffers from inherent manufacturing defects and the same could not be rectified and adise the complainant to  contact with the OP No-2. Due to unfair trade practice/deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties the complaint suffered mentally, physically and financially.

          Despite notice the Opposite Parties  did not choose to contest  the case by  fillling  their written version.

            In course of  hearing, we heard the complainant and gone thropugh the records carefully.

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 O.P.No. 2 to refund paid Rs 8,500/- (Rupees  Eight thousand five hundred) 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 a copy of this order in default, the Opposite Party No-2 is liable to pay Rs.50/- per day of default  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  26th October, 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.