1. The complainant filed a petition praying to pass orders directing the O.Ps to refund the cost of the mobile hand set and to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. The complainant in the petition submitted that he purchased an Intex Mobile hand set from the OP No-1 bearing Model No. Intex Aqua Stad 5.0 IMEI No. 911403851725766 and paid Rs 7,300/- (Rupees Seven thousand three 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.47 dated 5.3.2015 along with warranty certificate in favour of the complainant. Just one month after its purchase, the complainant found several defect and brought to the knowledge of O.P.No.1 towards the rectification of defects for seven times and handed over the Mobile to the OP No-1 who kept the mobile with him for some days in each time and returned the same by saying that the defects of the mobile has been rectified. On using the said set, again the set 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-2.The complainant contacted the customer care of OP No-2 yielded no result. Due to unfair trade practice/deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties the complaint 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 notice the Opposite Parties did not choose to contest the case by filling 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.No. 2 to refund Rs 7,300/- (Rupees Seven thousand three hundred ) only the cost of the mobile and Rs.5,000/- (five thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two 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 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 26th September, 2015
