Orissa

Malkangiri

28/2015

Ram Prasad Patnaik. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop.AIR TELECOM,Near NAC Office, - Opp.Party(s)

self

30 May 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. 28/2015
( Date of Filing : 20 Mar 2015 )
 
1. Ram Prasad Patnaik.
At.Sai Nagar (Kumutiguda),Malkangiri.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Prop.AIR TELECOM,Near NAC Office,
Main Road,Malkangiri,Odisha.
2. Manager, United Tele Service Ltd.,
Giripa Main Road, PO. Haltu, Kolkata - 700078, West Bengal.
............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 May 2015
Final Order / Judgement
  1. The complainant who is a Lawyer, filed a petition praying  to pass orders directing the O.Ps to refund Rs. 10,700/- the cost of the Mobile handset or replace the same and to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
  2. The complainant in the petition submitted that has purchased a GIONEE Mobile phone bearing Model No. M2 M IMEI No. 865346020448693 and S IMEI No. 865346022448691 and paid Rs. 10,700.00 (Rupees Ten thousand  Seven hundred) only towards the cost of the said mobile handset and accordingly the Op.No.1 granted a printed Money receipt vide Retail Invoice No. 1217 dated 15.08.2014 along with warranty certificate in favour of the complainant. Three and half months after its purchase, the  above Mobile set showed several defects despite several approaches which 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 such the Ops set ex-parte.

We come across a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vidya Dhar-versus-Munikif 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 manufacture the Op.No.2 to refund Rs. 10,700/- (Rupees Ten thousand Seven hundred only) the cost of the Mobile and to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) to the complainant towards monetary which includes litigation expenses 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 May,2015.  

 
 
[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.