Orissa

Malkangiri

58/2015

Sanjay De, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop.Malyabanta Computers, - Opp.Party(s)

self

31 Jul 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. 58/2015
( Date of Filing : 06 Jun 2015 )
 
1. Sanjay De,
aged about 32 years, S/O Khitish Chandra De, Vill. MV.37, Po-Taralakata, PS-Orkel, Dist-Malkangiri. Odisha.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Prop.Malyabanta Computers,
Near DNK Play Ground,Hospital Road,Malkangiri,Odisha.
2. M/S EPSON INDIA PVT LTD,
12th floor, the Millenia Road, A, Co.1, Murphy Road, Ulsoor, MG Bangalore-560008.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Ashok Kumar Pattnaik PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Bhavani Acharya MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 31 Jul 2015
Final Order / Judgement

    

    1.  The complainant filed a petition praying to pass orders directing the O.Ps either to replace the same model defect free printer or refund the cost of the printer and to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation.

      2.  The complainant in his petition submitted that he purchased a printer Epson CISS L220 serial No. VGXK032189 on payment of Rs.10,900.00 (Rupees Ten thousand Nine hundred ) only  towards the cost of the said printer and accordingly the OP No.1 granted  a printed retail Invoice vide No. MC/RI/81 dated 24th May,2015 along with warranty certificate in favour of the complainant. Just after its  purchase, the complainant shifted the same to his village and on use found that the eprinter is not working properly and no printed paper came out from the printer and 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 complainant suffered mentally, physically and financially.

            Upon notice the Op No-1 appeared and filed his written version denying her liabilities. Despite notice, the Opposite Party No-2 neither appeared nor filed his written version as such the Ops No-2 set ex-parte.

            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 manufacturer the  OP No.2 either to replace the defect free printer of same model or to refund Rs. 10,900/- (Rupees Ten thousand Nine hundred only) the cost of the printer and pay RS. 5,000/- (Five thousand only) to the complainant towards monetary compensation which includes litigation expenses 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 be communicated to the parties free of cost.

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

Pronounced in open Court on 31st July, 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.