1. The complainant filed a petition praying to pass orders directing the O.Ps to refund  Rs. 15,000/- the cost of the Mobile handset and Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. The complainant in the petition submitted that she purchased a Lava Mobile handset bearing model No. LAVA-081 IMEI No. 911219055071854 vide Delivery Challan No. 1889 dated 11.08.2013 for Rs. 3,300/- One month 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 as such did the Ops set ex-parte.

We come across a decision of  the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vidya Dhar-versus-Munkif Raoand 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 argument 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 manufacturer the OP.No.2 to refund the cost of the mobile of Rs. 3,300.00 (Rupees Three thousand Three hundred) and pay Rs. 5,000/- only to the complainant towards 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 29^th September,2014.