1. The fact of case of complainant is that he placed an order for purchase of Amazon Basics Circular Polarizer Lens – 82m for sale consideration of Rs. 599/- with the O.P.No.2 vide order ID 408-0954549-8077155 and the same was supplied by the O.P. No. 1 at the residential address of the complainant.It is alleged that he received the alleged product which was totally different one in size as compare to the order placed by him with the O.P. and on approach to the O.P. No. 2, he was advised to contact with the O.P. No.1 and as per advise of the O.P. No. 1 he returned the said product to the O.P. No. 2 and asked for refund of amount to the O.Ps and since the amount was not disbursed to him, he contacted with the O.Ps, who informed the amount of Rs. 561/- was successfullyprocessed on 14.12.2017 willreflect on his account by 20.12.2017.It is further alleged that he had saving bank account with ICICI bank which was already closed as on 08.12.2017, and in this regard, his several approaches were not cared by the O.Ps, hence he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to pay the cost of the alleged product of Rs. 599/- and to pay him Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation.
    
2. The O.P. No. 1 though appeared in this case but did not choose to file their counter versions to make contradictions to the allegations of complainant, inspite of repeated opportunities were given to them keeping in view of natural justice, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them and the allegations against them made by the complainant remained unchallenged and unrebuttal.
    
3. The O.P. No. 2 though not appeared in this case but sent their counter versions admitting the delivery of alleged product to the complainant by them but denied the allegations of complainant contending that they are only the facilitator but not the manufacturer nor the seller, whereas, it is only the O.P. No. 1 who sold the alleged product to the complainant and since there is principal to principal relationship between the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 and the alleged product is sold by the O.P.No.1, therefore, they have no liability in the present disputes.  Further it is contended that since there is no cause of action and the complainant being not their customer, and with other contentions, they have prayed to dismiss the case against them. 
    
4. Complainant filed certain documents like (i) invoice raised by the O.P. No. 2 in the name of O.P. No. 1, (ii) item delivered status report, (iii) xerox copy of DTDC Courier receipts towards returning the alleged product, (iv) xerox copy of ICICI bank authority, Malkangiri showing the closure of account vide no. 368901500710, and (v) xerox copy of email correspondence received from the O.P. No. 2.  Whereas the O.P. No. 2 filed documents like (i) duly attested authorization, (ii) copy of certified true copy of the Resolution dated 22.09.2014, and (iii) attested copy of “Conditions of Use”.
    
5. During the time of hearing, only the complainant was present, whereas the O.Ps inspite of repeated adjournments are provided to them keeping in view of natural justice, did not choose to participate in the hearing, as such we heard from the complainant only and lost every opportunities to hear from the O.Ps.  Perused the case records and material documents available therein.
    
6. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased one Amazon Basics Circular Polarizer Lens – 82m for sale consideration of Rs. 599/- from the O.P.No.2 vide order ID 408-0954549-8077155 and the same was supplied by the O.P. No. 1 at the residential address of the complainant. Complainant filed document to that effect.  The allegations of complainant is that he received the alleged product which was totally different one in size as compare to the order placed by him with the O.P. No.2 and on approach to the O.P. No. 2, he was advised to contact with the O.P. No.1.  Complainant also filed document to that effect.  Further it is alleged that as per advise of the O.P. No. 1 he returned the said product to the O.P. No. 2 which was acknowledged by the O.P. No. 2.  Complainant also filed document to that effect.  The allegations of complainant is that inspite of repeated approaches to the O.Ps., the amount of the alleged product has not been refunded to him.  Whereas the contentions of O.P.No.2 is that they have already refunded the amount for the product on 14.12.2017 vide reference no. 006269., but miserably failed to produce any cogent evidence to that effect.  Further the complainant has filed the certified copy of bank account status report vide letter no. 182 dated 09.02.2018 issued by the ICICI bank authority to prove that his account was already closed as 08.12.2017 and the balance in the account if NIL, prior to the date of refund of amount by the O.Ps, as contended by them.Further inspite of repeated adjournments, the O.P. No. 2 neither produced any documents to prove that whether the amount refunded by them was actually paid to the complainant.Hence without any cogent evidence the plea of O.P. will not do and the contentions of O.P. No.2 cannot be believable in this junction and the allegations of complainant became unrebuttal from the side all the O.Ps.In this connection, we have fortified with the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another, wherein it is held that that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”   Further the absence of O.P. No.1 throughout the proceeding, makes the allegations of complainant strong and vital. 
   Further it is ascertained that complainant has returned the alleged product to the O.P. No.2 which was also acknowledged by them.Therefore, it is the bounden duty on the part of the O.P.No.2 to provide better service to their genuine customer i.e. complainant and to see whether the refunded amount was actually refunded to him or not.But without providing their best services, they have intended to push the burden on the complainant by advising him to contact with the bank’s customer care, which is not permissible in the eye of law.
    
7. Hence, considering the submissions of complainant and the material documents available in the case records, we feel, the O.Ps have not refunded the amount of the product to the complainant inspite of his best approaches and correspondence made with the O.Ps.,  as such the complainant is entitled his amount of Rs. 599/- and due to non provide of better service by the O.Ps, complainant must have suffered mental agony and physical harassment, for which he was compelled to seek his redress before the Fora by incurring some expenses, as such in our view, he deserves to be compensated by the O.Ps. Hence this order.

ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed on part.  The O.P. No. 2 is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged product of Rs. 599/- with 6% interest from the date when they received the amount from the complainant till the date of this order.  The O.P. No. 2 is herewith also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant for non providing better service and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant and all the directions should be complied within 30 days from the receipt of this order, failing which, the cost of alleged product shall carry interest 10% per annum from the date they received the aforesaid amount till payment.  Further the O.P. No. 2 is at liberty to recover the amount paid by them to the complainant from the O.P. No. 1, if they wish to do so.  

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 17^th day of January, 2019.

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.