The complainant filed a petition praying to pass orders directing the O.Ps to either to replace the handset of to refund Rs. 18,500/- the cost of the Mobile handset to the Complainant and award Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for harassment and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
The complainant in the petition submitted that he purchased a Geonee Mobile hand set from the shop of above Op No-1 bearing Model No. E7 mini IMEI No. 864141020757768 and paid Rs. 18,500/- (Rupees Eighteen thousand five 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. 33 dated 06.09.2014 (Annexure-A) along with warranty certificate in favour of the complainant. Just after two months of its purchase, the above Mobile set shows several defects for which the complainant met the O.P. No.1 and narrated all the problems before him for its rectification of defects and on his advise the complainant handed over the mobile to the OP No-1 who sent the same to the OP No-2 and retuned the same after 15 days by saying that the problem of the mobile has been rectified. Thereafter the complainant came to his house and after 2days of its use the previous again exibited in the hand set. The complainant again met the OP No-1 who kept the mobile with him and retuned the same claiming the rectification of defects but hand set reapeats its defects as before and finally stopped its functioning and became defunct as a result of which the complainant could not able to use the said mobile with full satisfication ans failed to get its utility and faced unbearable hardship. On last time when the complainant approached the OP No-1 for its rectification, the OP no-1 disclosed that the hand set is suffers from inherent manufacturing defects which can not be rectified and advised to contact the OP No-3 for its replacement. The complainant approached to the OP No.1 time and again thereafter the customer care of OP No-3 but yielded no result. Due to unfair trade practice/deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties the complainant suffered mentally, physically and financially.
Despite notice the Opposite Parties did not choose to contest the case by 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 documented evidence and pleadings, we are inclined to pass order in favour of the complainant, directing the OP No.3 to refund Rs. 18,500.00/- (Rupees Eighteen thousand five hundred ) the cost of the mobile and RS.5,000/- (Five thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Tow thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days on receipt of copy of this order in default, the Opposite Party No-3 is liable to pay Rs. 50/- per day of default 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 April, 2015.
