1. The complainant filed a petition praying to pass order directing the O.Ps to refund Rs. 7,900/- the cost of the mobile handset of replace the same and to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
    
2. The complainant in his petition that he has purchased an intex mobile phone bearing Model No. Aqua Speed on payment of Rs. 7,9000.00 Rupees Seven thousand nine hundred) only towards the cost of the said mobile handset and accordingly the OP No.1 granted a printed Money receipt vide delivery challan No. 21 dated 25.04.2015 along with warranty certificate in favour of the complainant. Just two days of 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 as such the Ops set ex-parte.

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 Rs. 7,900/-( Rupees Seven thousand nine hundred) only the cost of the mobile and pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant towards monetary compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards the 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 31^st july,2015.