Orissa

Malkangiri

122/2015

Panchana Dash, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop.M/S Quality Store, - Opp.Party(s)

self

11 Dec 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. 122/2015
( Date of Filing : 15 Oct 2015 )
 
1. Panchana Dash,
aged about 32 yeas, S/O Late Niranjan Dash, At. Present Qr. No. F/589, SDO Colony, Malkangiri, Present of Vill/Po. Kudumuluguma, PS. Orkel, Dist. Malkangiri, odisha.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Prop.M/S Quality Store,
Main Road, Malkangiri, PO/PS/Dist. Malkangiri, Odisha.
2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
B-1, Sector-81, Phase-2, Noida District.
3. Samsung Customer Satisfication,
2nd floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Ashok Kumar Pattnaik PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Bhavani Acharya MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 11 Dec 2015
Final Order / Judgement

      

  1.  The complainant filed a petition praying to pass orders directing the O.Ps to refund the cost of the Mobile handset and to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation.

      2.  The complainant in the petition submitted that he purchased a Samsung Mobile handset from the OP No-1 bearing Model- Samsung Galaxy –E-7 IMEI No. *358185/06/443408/4* and No. *358186/06/443408/4* and paid Rs. 19,400/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand Four hundred) only towards the cost of the said mobile handset and  About 45 days of is purchase, the complainant found defect and brought to the knowledge of OP No.1 towards the rectification of defects and handed over the Mobile to the OP No-1 who kept the same for 30 days for its repair thereafter he refund to repair. Finding no other alternative the complainant approached before the forum for redressal of his grievances.

            Despite due notice, the Opposite Parties did not choose to contest the case by filing their written version.

In course of ex-parte 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  OP No. 2 & 3  to refund Rs. 19,400/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand Four hundred only) the cost of the mobile and pay RS. 5,000/- (Five thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One 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 & 3 are  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 11th  December, 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.