- The complainant filed a petition praying to pass orders directing the O.Ps either to deliver a new defect free same model handset or refund the cost of the Mobile hand set and to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. The complainant in the petition submitted that he purchased a Samsung Mobile hand set from the OP No-1 bearing Model No. Samsung Core-2 EMEI No. 35796/06/38807/1 and paid Rs. 7,800/- (Rupees Seven thousand eight hundred) only toward the cost of the said mobile handset and accordingly the Op No.1 granted a printed Money receipt vide Challan No. 007 dated 05.04.2015 along with warranty certificate in favour of the complainant. Three months after its purchase, the complainant found defect and brought to the knowledge of O.P. No.1 toward the rectification of defects and handed over the Mobile to the Op No-1 who kept the mobile with him for 25 days and returned the same by saying that the defects of the mobile has been rectified. On using the said set again showed same defects for which the complainant again met the OP No-1 who disclosed that the set suffers from inherent manufacturing defects and the same could not be rectified and advise the complainant to contact with the OP No-3. . Due to unfair trade practice / deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties the complaint suffered mentally, physically and financially.
Despite notice the Opposite Parties did not choose to contest the case filing their written version.
In course of 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 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.3 to refund Rs. 7,8000/- (Rupees Seven 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 24th November,2015.
