Orissa

Malkangiri

76/2015

Prabhas Sarkar, S/O Dukhiram Sarkar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop.Global IT City - Opp.Party(s)

self

26 Sep 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. 76/2015
( Date of Filing : 14 Jul 2015 )
 
1. Prabhas Sarkar, S/O Dukhiram Sarkar,
Vill.Mpv.10, PS/Dist-Malkangiri.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Prop.Global IT City
Main Road, Malkangiri, Odisha.
2. Manufacturer / M.D. Samsung Mobile Phone, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
B1, Sector-81, Phase-2, Noida District, Goutam Buddh Nagar, Utter Pradesh, India.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Ashok Kumar Pattnaik PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Bhavani Acharya MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 26 Sep 2015
Final Order / Judgement

       

       1.  The complainant filed a petition praying to pass orders directing the O.Ps to refund the cost of the Mobile handset and to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.

      2.  The complainant in the petition submitted that he purchased a Samsung Mobile handset from the OP No-1 bearing Model- Samsung S Duos -2 IMEI No. *35008/06/159907/6  and paid Rs. 9,000/- (Rupees Nine thousand) only towards the cost of the said mobile handset and accordingly the OP No.1 granted a printed Money receipt vide challan  No. 14 dated  13.09.2014 along with warranty certificate in favour of the complainant. Six months after its purchase, the complainant found several defect and brought to the knowledge of OP No.1 towards the rectification of defects and handed over the Mobile to the OP No-1 who kept the mobile with him for one month and retuned the same by saying that the defects of  the mobile has been rectified. On using the said set, again the set showed same defects of  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 adise the complainant to contact with the OP No-2. Due to unfair trade practice/deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties the complainant suffered mentally, physically and financially.

            Notice served on the Op-1 through personal service and notice sent to the OP-2 through registered post. Despite due 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 documentary evidence and pleadings, we are inclined to pass order in favour of the complainant, directing the  OP No.2 to refund Rs. 9,000/- (Rupees Nine thousand only) the cost of the mobile and pay 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 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 is communicated to the parties free of cost.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Pronounced in open Court on 26th  September, 2015.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Ashok Kumar Pattnaik]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. 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.