Orissa

Malkangiri

25/2015

Tarak Nath Mondal, S/O-Late-Bhairaba Ch. Mondal. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop.M/s Mobility Global Inc., - Opp.Party(s)

self

30 Apr 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. 25/2015
( Date of Filing : 07 Mar 2015 )
 
1. Tarak Nath Mondal, S/O-Late-Bhairaba Ch. Mondal.
Vill.MV.-47,Po-Tamasa,Ps/Dist-Malkangiri,Odisha.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Prop.M/s Mobility Global Inc.,
S.No-85,Village.Gundiapochampally,Mondal Medchal,Dist-Rangareddy,Andhrapradesh,Pin.500014.
2. Chief Executive, Intex Technologies (India) limited,
D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Ashok Kumar Pattnaik PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Bhavani Acharya MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 30 Apr 2015
Final Order / Judgement

           

The complainant filed a petition praying to pass orders directing the O.Ps to either to replace the handset of to refund Rs. 4,618/- the cost of the Mobile handset to the Complainant and award Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for harassment and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.

            The complainant in the petition submitted that watching the TV add the complainant had placed order to the OP-No-1 vide Order No. 11785301 accordingly the Opposite Party No-1 sent one Intex mobile handset Model No. Aqua5X as per invoice No. 847364/AP/0002853/2014 dated 29th November, 2014 through VVP of Rs. 4618/- which includes the COD Value of Rs. 4398/- Just after One and half months of its purchase, the above mobile set showed several defects like immediate discharge, serene problem, hearing problem, automatic switch off ect. for which the complainant contacted the Opposite Party No-1 & 2 several times over mobile which yielded no result. Due to unfair trade practice/deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties the complainant suffered mentally physically and financially.

                Notice sent to the OP No-1 retuned back as unserved. Despite notice the Opposite Party No-2 did not choose to contest the case by filed his 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 documented evidence and pleadings, we are inclined to pass order in favour of the complainant, directing the OP No.2 to Rs.  4,618/- (Rupees Four thousand six hundred eighteen only) the cost of the mobile and RS.5,000/- (Five thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Tow 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 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 30th April, 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.