Orissa

Malkangiri

64/2015

Judhister Mondal, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor, M/S Air Telecom , - Opp.Party(s)

self

30 Jul 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. 64/2015
( Date of Filing : 09 Jun 2015 )
 
1. Judhister Mondal,
aged about 25 years, S/O- Niranjan Mondal, At.Pr.Reclamation Colony, Malkangiri, Permanent of Vill. Mv.-18,Po-Gorakunta, Ps/Dist-Malkangiri.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Proprietor, M/S Air Telecom ,
Near NAC Office, Malkangiri (Side Shop of Surendra Padhy) Po/Ps/Dist- Malkangiri, Odisha.
2. Jeypore Gionee Care Center,
Padhy Complx, 3rd floor, Main Raod, Jeypore, Dist. Koraput.
3. Manager, United Tele Service Ltd.,
209, Giripa Main road, PO. Haltu, Kolkata-700078, Weat Bengal.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Ashok Kumar Pattnaik PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Bhavani Acharya MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 30 Jul 2015
Final Order / Judgement

 

             The complainant filed a petition praying to pass orders directing the O.Ps either to replace the handset with fresh warranty award Rs. 25,000/- towards the compensation for  harassment and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.

             The complainant in the petition submitted that he purchased a Geonee Mobile handset from the shop of above OP No-1 bearing Model No- GIONEE V-5 IMEI No. 864495020148687 and paid Rs. 11,,900.00 (Rupees eleven thousand nine hundred) only towards the cost of the said mobile handset and accordingly the OP No.1 granted a printed Money receipt bearing No. 1128 dated  29.06.2014 along with warranty certificate in favour of the complainant. Just after two months of its purchase, the key bottom (touch pad) became inoperative, the complainant handed over to the OP No-1 who returned the same after 7 days by saying that the hand set is suffers from inherent manufacturing defects which can not be rectified. Due to unfair trade practice/deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties the complainant suffered mentally, physically and financially.

            Despite notice the Opposite Parties did not choose to contest the case by filing 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  OP No. 3 to refund Rs. 11,900.00 (Rupees eleven thousand nine hundred) 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-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 30th 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.