Orissa

Malkangiri

CC/5/2015

Kalpana Roul - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop. Quality Stor, - Opp.Party(s)

31 Mar 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/5/2015
( Date of Filing : 15 Jan 2015 )
 
1. Kalpana Roul
DNK, Chouk, Main Road, Malkangiri, PS/Dist. Malkangiri.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Prop. Quality Stor,
Main Road, Malkangiri.
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 : 31 Mar 2015
Final Order / Judgement

 

  1.   The complainant filed a petition prayed to pass orders directing the O.Ps to replace the LED of refund Rs. 27,000/- the cost of the LED and to pay Rs.30,000/- towards harassment Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost of litigation.
  1.      The complainant in the petition submitted that she had purchased a Samsung LED 32”  vide model No. UA32EH4003RMXL, SL No. 22833ZNF 112389R as per invoice No. 2538 dated 06.02.2014 on payment of Rs. 27,000/- soon after its use the LED showed various defects and on several attempts the Ops are failed to rectify the defects due to the inherent manufacturing defects. Thereafter the complainant made several approaches to all the Opposite Parties yielded no result. Due to unfair trade practice/deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties the complaint suffered mentally, physically and financially.

            Notice served on the OP-1 through the peon of this forum. Notice sent to the OP-2 through the registered post has not retuned        back as un-served. Hence service presumed. Despite notice, the Ops No-1 & 2 neither appeared nor filed their written version. Hence, the Ops No-1 & 2 are set se-parte.

            In course of ex-parte hearing, we heard authorized Agent appearing for the complainant and gone through the records carefully.

            We come across a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vidya Dhar- Versus- bMunkif 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 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 Opposite Partie No-2 either to replace the LCD by a new one with fresh warranty or refund the cost of the LCD and Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand only) 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 Parties 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 31st March, 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.