The case of the complainant in brief is that he had purchased Samsung T.V model Samsung LED 30 Vide M.UA32F4100ARM & serial No. 23463ZNF101990Z from the Opposite Party No-1 by paying a sum of Rs. 31,900/- ( Rupees thirty one thousand nine hundred only) for which an invoice No.4432 dated 24.04.2014 along with warranty has been brought on record. According to the Complainant that just after two months of its use the said LED showed defects in picture and though the sound from the LED is audible but no pictures are display on the screen. Immediately, the complainant reported the matter to the Ops and the technician of the Ops attended the LED but he failed in his attempt thereafter the Ops did not turned up either for repair or replacement. Finding no other alternative, the complainant compelled to file present complaint with a prayer to direct the Ops to refund Rs. 31,900/- the cost of the LED and award of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and 5,000/- towards the litigation expenses.
Despite receipt notice, the Ops are neither appeared nor filed their written version hence, Ops are set ex-parte.
In the absence of any representation from the Opposite Parties and having gone through the documents and all other evidence placed before us by the Complainant. We are of the considered opinion that the said Samsung LED 30 vide M.UA32F4100ARM & serial No. 23463ZNF101990Z is a defective one. Further, grievances of the complainant was brought to the notice of the opposite parties and same was not attended at the level of the opposite parties.
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.”
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 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 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&3 are 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
Opposite Party No-2 & 3 are directed to refund an amount of Rs. 31,900/- ( Rupees thirty one thousand nine hundred only) to the Complainant towards the cost of the LED and pay Rs. 10,000/- towards monetary compensation which includes the cost of litigation. The Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the Opposite Party No-2 & 3 are liable to pay Rs. 100/- per day of default as punitive damage to the complainant.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.
Pronounced in open Court on 28th February, 2015.
