1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 20.10.2019 he purchased one Samsung Mobile handset of O.P. No.3 from O.P.No.1 through Amazon bearing model no. M30s Sapphire Blue vide invoice no. 404-1499896-9749131 and paid Rs. 16,999/- dated 20.10.2019 alongwith warranty certificate.  It is alleged that 1 month after it’s use, the said mobile handset showed several defects like touch screen / instant hanging / overheat performance in its body part and did not function properly for which he handed over the mobile handset to O.P. No.2, who is the authorized service centre of O.P. No.3 who after one month keeping with him, returned the said mobile handset being repaired, but after 10 to 15 days, the said mobile showed the previous defect alongwith some additional defects like battery backup and the complainant handed the alleged handset to O.P. No.2 for its repair and received the same after 15 days.  It is also alleged that on March 2020 the handset exhibited previous defects, and the O.P. No.2 suggested that the motherboard of the handset is not working properly and kept the mobile handset with him.  Thus showing unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of mobile handset i.e. Rs. 16,999/- and to pay Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs.

2. The O.P. No. 1 though received the notice of this Commission which was sent through R.P. vide R.L. No. RO025108065IN dated 24.09.2020, did not choose to appear in this case, nor he filed the counter / written version nor also participated in the hearing, inspite of several opportunities / adjournments have given to him for his submissions keeping in view of natural justice, as such, we lost every opportunities to hear from him.
    
3. The O.P. No. 2 though received the notice of this Commission, did not choose to appear in this case, nor he filed the counter / written version nor also participated in the hearing, inspite of several opportunities / adjournments have given to him for his submissions keeping in view of natural justice, as such, we lost every opportunities to hear from him.

4. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 3 is represented through their Ld. Counsel, who filed their counter version admitting the sale of alleged mobile handset to the complainant but denied all other facts contending that the alleged handset is a well established product in the market over a period of years and all those products are put through stringent control system, quality checks by the quality department before dispatch to the market.  Further they contended that the complainant has not produced any expert opinion report to prove his allegation and also the defects in the said mobile are not in their knowledge, so also neither the complainant nor the O.P.No.1 & 2 have intimated them regarding any defect, as such showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.

5. Except Complainant no other parties to the present disputes, have filed any documents.  Heard from the complainant as well as from the A/R for O.P.No.3.  Perused the documents and materials available in the record.

6. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding sale of alleged mobile handset to the complainant by the O.P.No.1 through Amazon bearing model no. M30s Sapphire Blue vide invoice no. 404-1499896-9749131 and paid Rs. 16,999/- dated 20.10.2019 alongwith warranty certificate and complainant has filed document to that effect.Complainant also submits that 1 months after its purchase, the alleged mobile handset showed defects like touch screen / instant hanging / overheat performance in its body part and did not function properly, though the same was repaired by the O.P. No.2 but on March 2020 the said handset did not function due to defects in motherboard.Since the O.P. No.2 did not appear throughout the proceeding, we lost every opportunities to hear from him so also to come to a conclusion that whether the alleged mobile handset was having any major defects and was properly repaired.Though the O.P.No.3 challenged the same stating that the defects occurred in the mobile handset are not in their knowledge, but did not choose to adduce any cogent evidence either from an expert opinion nor obtained any evidence from their channel partner i.e. O.P.No.2 and the O.P. No.2 though received the notice from this Commision, did not challenge the versions of complainant, as such the averments made by the complainant became unrebuttal from the side of 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 Hon’ble National Commission has held that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”

7. Further, at the time of hearing, the O.P.No.2 is absent on repeated calls, for which we lost opportunities to come to know that whether the submissions of the O.P.No.3 contains any truth or not, as such the contentions of the O.P. No. 3 was taken into consideration regarding to the fact that the defects were not in their knowledge.  However, the O.P.No.3 has admitted that the alleged mobile handset in dispute was manufactured by them which was sold to the complainant. The allegations of the complainant regarding the fact that after 1 months of its first repair, it exhibited the previous defects alongwith some additional defects, was well corroborated by him at the time of hearing.Though the O.P.No.3 have challenged the same but to make it contrary, they did not adduce any evidence to that effect, therefore, the allegations of complainant is wellestablished, so also the absence of the O.P.No.2 makes the averments of complainant strong and vital.

8. Further, the defects were occurred during the warranty period though the mobile handset was used for 1 months, which was repaired by the O.P. No. 2, but the same defects were persisted alongwith some additional defects even after of its repair was made by O.P. No.2, as such the complainant prayed for the cost of the mobile from the O.Ps.  We feel, the alleged mobile handset would not have repaired properly by the O.P. No. 2, for which the alleged mobile handset reiterated its previous defects alongwith some additional defects and in our view, such  type of practice adopted by the O.P. No. 2 is clearly established the principle of deficiency in service.  Though the submissions of complainant was challenged by the O.P.No.3 contending that replacement or refund of cost cannot be made without any expert opinion report made to that effect, which seems that O.P.No.3 intended to strictly push the burden of proof on the complainant but miserably failed to make any contradiction to the effect that of existence of any defects in the alleged mobile. 
    
9. We feel, had the O.P. No.2 rectified the alleged defects occurred in the mobile handset properly, then the defects of the mobile handset could have easily and properly rectified, so that the complainant would not have suffered.  Further it was the duty of O.P.No.2 on the day when he received the alleged mobile handset from the complainant, immediately, he was supposed to intimate the O.P.No.3 for providing better service to their genuine customer as the alleged handset was suffers from major defects.  But without providing better service, as per the norms of the company, the O.P.No. 2 indulged himself in corrupt practice of providing improper service, which is not permissible as per law. 

10. Further lying the said mobile handset for a long period without any repair and use, in our view, is of no use.

11. Hence considering the above discussions, we feel, the complainant deserves to be compensated with adequate compensation and costs for not providing better service by the O.Ps to their valuable customer like the complainant, as the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and physical harassment, for which he was compelled to file this case incurring some expenses.  Considering his sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation will meet the ends of justice.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                         ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part and the O.P. No.3 being the manufacturer of the alleged product is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged mobile handset i.e. Rs. 16,999/- to the complainant in lieu of the alleged handset and also to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of litigation within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the cost of mobile shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of order till payment.

    Pronounced in the open Court on this the 29^th day of January, 2021.

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.