This is a discussion on Anand Traders within the Judgments forums, part of the General Discussions category; Shri Khem Chand S/O Shri Durga Dutt, Resident of Village Gugaghat, P.O. Dharot, Tehsil and District Solan. Complainant Versus ...
- 09-10-2009, 11:46 AM #1
Shri Khem Chand S/O Shri Durga Dutt, Resident of Village Gugaghat, P.O. Dharot, Tehsil and District Solan.
M/S Anand Traders, Near Masjid, The Mall Solan,
Tehsil and District Solan, H.P.
Through its Proprietor.
For the complainant: Mr. Satya Narayan, Advocate vice
Mr. Sita Ram, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party: Exparte.
O R D E R:
Pritam Singh (District Judge) President: - This order shall dispose of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased mobile set bearing model No.7000 Venes IMEI No.356621020150440 alongwith 1 GB memory card from the OP on 08.09.2008 for a consideration of Rs.4300/-. That the very next day of its purchase, it started giving problem and went out of order. As such, it was returned to the OP with the request to rectify its defect and to return it to him after removal of the defects. But, the OP neither rectified the defects in the mobile set nor it was returned to him and mobile set is still lying with the OP. Hence, feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the act of the OP, the complainant perforce filed this complaint against the OP.
2. Notice of this complaint was issued to the OP, but the OP did not turn up despite service. Therefore, the OP was ordered to be proceeded against exparte on 26.12.2008.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the complaint.
4. The complainant in support of his case has placed on record Annexure C-1 copy of receipt regarding payment of the sale consideration amount of Rs.4300/-. In addition, the complainant has also sworn affidavit in support of the allegations contained in the complaint.
5. As such, from the aforesaid documentary as well as oral unrebutted evidence adduced on record by the complainant, it stands established that the OP sold a defective mobile hand set to the complainant which went out of order on the very next day of its purchase which defect was not rectified by OP despite repeated request of complainant. Beside due to non-appearance of OP despite service, we can safely draw adverse inference against OP.
6. Resultantly, we allow this complaint and direct the OP to refund Rs.4300/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 26.09.2008 till making full payment of the amount aforesaid. The litigation cost is quantified at Rs.1,000/- payable by the OP to the complainant. This order shall be complied with by the OP within a period of forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned counsel for the complainant has undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office free of cost, whereas certified copy of this order shall be sent to the OP through UPC.
- By mrinalg17 in forum Stock MarketReplies: 3Last Post: 02-24-2012, 03:39 PM
- By Unregistered in forum TransportationReplies: 4Last Post: 02-07-2011, 11:44 AM
- By Advocate.sonia in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-02-2009, 11:18 PM
- By Sidhant in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-01-2009, 02:34 PM
- By Sidhant in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-01-2009, 01:30 PM