Orissa

Malkangiri

79/2015

Raj Kisore Padhy, S/O Sri Ananda Padhy, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop.M/S Arun Computer, - Opp.Party(s)

self

29 Sep 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. 79/2015
( Date of Filing : 27 Jul 2015 )
 
1. Raj Kisore Padhy, S/O Sri Ananda Padhy,
At.Sambayguda Malkangiri, PS/Dist- Malkangiri.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Prop.M/S Arun Computer,
Infornt of ITDA Office Malkangiri, PS/Dist. Malkangiri, Odisha.
2. Manager, United Tele Service Ltd.,
209, Giripa Main Road, PO. Haltu, Kolkata-700078, West Bengal.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Ashok Kumar Pattnaik PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Bhavani Acharya MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 29 Sep 2015
Final Order / Judgement

 

1.         The complainant filed a petition praying to pass orders directing the O.Ps either to replace the defectives handset or to refunds Rs. 11,700/-  the cost of the Mobile handset and to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and  Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.

2.         The complainant in the petition submitted that he purchased a GIONNE Mobile hand set Model No- GEONI V-5 IMEI No. 864495020228869 and S No. 864495021728867 and paid Rs. 11,,700.00 (Rupees eleven thousand seven hundred) only towards the cost of the said mobile handset and accordingly the OP No.1 granted a printed Money receipt bill No. 26 dated  26.12.2014 along with warranty certificate in favour of the complainant. Just three months after its purchase, the above Mobile set showed several defects. The complainant approached both the Ops time and again yielded no result. 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-2through registered post. Despite notice the Opposite Parties did not choose to contest the case by filing their written version.

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  Manufacturing the OP No. 2 to refund Rs. 11,700.00 (Rupees eleven thousand Seven hundred only) the cost of the mobile 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-3 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 29th  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.