1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 26.02.2021 she purchased one Samsung Galaxy mobile of O.P. No. 2 bearing HSN No. 85171211 which was sold by O.P. No.1 vide invoice no. IN-AMD1-210902 for consideration of Rs. 18,999/- with warranty certificate.  It is alleged that after using the said product for about 6 to 7 months, the alleged product exhibited defects like display problem and did not function properly, for which he submitted the mobile handset at the authorized service center of O.P. No. 2 at Jeypore, who generated one bill vide no. 4332427677 dated 17.09.2021 and returned the same on the same day.It is also alleged that after using the same for about 20 days the previous defects reiterated alongwith some additional defects like auto switch problem and again the authorized service centre generated another job sheet no. 4334212132 dated 13.10.2021, but after repair the said mobile handset exhibited previous defects, thus with other allegations, she filed this case claiming the costs of mobile handset alongwith Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs from the O.Ps.

2. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1 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 them for their submissions keeping in view of natural justice, as such, we have lost opportunities to hear from them.

3. The O.P. No. 2 is represented through their Ld. Counsel, who appeared in this case, filed their counter in shape of written version admitting the manufacture of the alleged product so also sale of alleged mobile handset to the complainant but denied all other facts contending that the complainant purchased the product to her entire satisfaction and all the products of O.P. No. 2 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 her allegation and also the defects in the said mobile handset are not in their knowledge, so also nor the complainant intimated them regarding any defect, as such showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.

4. Except Complainant no other parties to the present disputes, have filed any documents.  Complainant filed invoice against the product and 2 nos. of job sheets.  Heard from the Complainant as well as from the A/R for O.P. No. 2.  Perused the documents and materials available in the record.    
    
5. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding sale of alleged mobile handset to the Complainant alongwith warranty certificate and Complainant filed documents to that effect.  The allegations of complainant is that that the alleged product was exhibited several defects from time to time and on approach to the authorized service centre of O.P. No. 2 at Jeypore namely “Krishna Electronics” where the job sheets raised for two times bearing no. 4332427677 dated 17.09.2021 and another job sheet no. 4334212132 dated 13.10.2021 which reveals that the alleged product suffering from display problem and auto switch problems.  Complainant filed documents to that effect.  It is ascertained that though the alleged mobile handset was repaired two times, but the defects reiterated from time to time.  Though the O.P. No. 2 challenged the same stating that the defects occurred in the alleged product are not in their knowledge, but did not choose to contradict the job sheets filed by the complainant which were issued by their authorized service centre, as such the averments made by the Complainant became unrebuttal by the O.P.  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 that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”   

6. Further the allegations of the complainant regarding the fact that after its repair, she found defects in the alleged mobile handset time and again with a suggestion of having inherent defect, was well corroborated by her at the time of hearing.  Though the O.P.No.2 have challenged the same but to make it contrary, they did not file any evidence to that effect by producing the evidence from their authorized service centre showing the mobile handset is in running condition, therefore, the allegations of complainant is well  established, so also the absence of such statement makes the averments of complainant strong and vital.

7. Further, the defects were occurred during the warranty period though the mobile handset was used for 6 to 7 months, which was also repaired by the authorized technicians, but the defects could not solved.  The job sheets clearly prove the defects in the alleged mobile handset.  Further it is settled principle of law that if any product exhibits defects from the time to time, than presumption can be taken for inherent defects. Further the submissions of complainant was challenged by the O.P.No.2 contending that replacement or refund of cost cannot be made without any expert opinion report made to that effect, whereas the O.P. No. 2 has overlooked the job sheets filed by the complainant which were issued by their authorized technician, hence we do not think that the plea of O.P. No. 2 will help them from any angle.

8. Further lying the said mobile handset for more than 1 and ½ years without any use, in our view, is having inherent defects, which is of no use.

9. Hence considering the above discussions, we feel, the complainant deserves to be compensated with adequate compensation and costs for non providing better service by the O.P. to the complainant, as the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and physical harassment, for which she was compelled to file this case incurring some expenses.  Considering her sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- 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.2 being the manufacturer of the alleged product is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged mobile handset i.e. Rs. 18,499/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards causing mental agony, physical harassment and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the cost of product i.e. Rs. 18,499/- shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this sale of alleged product i.e. 26.02.2021 order till payment.  Further the complainant is herewith directed to hand over the alleged  mobile handset to the O.P.No.2 at the time of complying the order by them.

Pronounced the order in the open Court on this the 5^th day of September, 2022.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.