Orissa

Malkangiri

153/2014

P.Raju, S/O P.Sankar - Complainant(s)

Versus

prop. Quality Store, - Opp.Party(s)

self

30 Dec 2014

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. 153/2014
( Date of Filing : 25 Sep 2014 )
 
1. P.Raju, S/O P.Sankar
Jaganath Street,Malkangiri,Odisha.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. prop. 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. JUSTICE Ashok Kumar Pattnaik PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE Bhavani Acharya MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 30 Dec 2014
Final Order / Judgement
  1. The complainant filed a petition praying to pass orders directing the O.Ps to refund the cost of the Mobile handset and to pay Rs. 50,000/- 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 Model No. GT19060 (Galexy Grand New) IMEI No.352742/06/081992/8 and paid Rs. 16,800/- (Rupees Sixteen thousand eight hundred) only towards the cost of the said mobile handset and accordingly the OP No.1 granted a printed money receipt vide Challan No.3 dated 31.03.2014 along with warranty certificate in favour of the complainant. Six months after its purchase, the complainant found defect and brought to the knowledge of OP No.1 towards the rectification of but the Op-1 failed to rectify the defects. Finally the Op.No.-1 disclosed that the mobile set suffers from inherent manufacturing defects and the same could not be rectified on further repair. Due to unfair trade practice / deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties the complaint suffered mentally, physically and financially.

            Despite notice both the Ops did not choose to file their written version. Hence, both the Ops set se-parte.

             In course of ex-parte hearing, we heard 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-Munkif Raoand 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 argument 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. 2 to refund Rs. 16,800/- (Rupees Sixteen thousand eight 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 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 30th December,2014.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Ashok Kumar Pattnaik]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE 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.