1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Gionee mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. Gionee M-5, IMEI No.860623030402687 and S.IMEI No. 860623030902686 vide Chalan No. – 2746 dated 10.09.2016 for consideration of Rs. 22,000/- along with warranty certificate.  It is alleged that six months after it’s use, the said mobile handset showed some defects in its functioning and he did not get it’s utility and in the month of February 2017, he reported the matter to the O.P.No.1 and deposited the said mobile handset with him, who after 30 days returned the said mobile with a false belief that the mobile was repaired, but after some days, the said mobile showed the previous defect along with some additional defects.  It is also alleged that on approach to the O.P.No.1 regarding the defects, the O.P.No.1 disclosed that the alleged mobile is having manufacturing defect, thus showing the 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 deliver to same model defect free mobile or to refund the cost of the mobile handset and to pay Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.
    
2. On the other hand, though the O.P. No. 1 received the notice from the Fora, but did not choose to appear in this case nor file his counter version nor also participated in the hearing inspite of several opportunities have given to him for his submissions keeping in view of natural justice, as such we lost opportunities to hear from him.
    
3. The O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No. 6 appeared through their common authorized representative who filed common counter admitting the purchase of alleged mobile by complainant but denied the other allegation basing on the provision of section 13 (1) (c) of the Act contending that since the complainant has not produced any export opinion report to prove his allegation regarding defectiveness of the mobile, as such they have no liability in the present case and with other contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
4. The O.P. No. 3 appeared in this case and filed their written version denying their liability, have contended that as on 30.09.2014 already they have handed over their marketing potential and service sector to the O.P. No. 4 & 5 with all of their liability on the day of cause of action and the O.P. No. 4 is the marketer of the O.P. No. 5, who is the manufacturer of the alleged mobile handset, as such showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them. 
    
5. The O.P. No. 4 & 5, who are the marketer and manufacturer of the alleged mobile handset, through received the notice from the Fora, did not choose to appear in this case, nor they have filed their counter / written version nor participated in the hearing also, inspite of repeated adjournments were given to them keeping in view of natural justice, as such we lost all opportunities to hear from them, hence the allegations of complainant remained unchallenged from their side.During hearing, the complainant has stated that during pendency of the case, the O.P. No. 4 & 5 have handed over all of their liability to the O.P. No. 6 and O.P. No. 6 is concern person to comply every liability.Hence the O.P. No. 6 is made as necessary party in the present case.
    
6. Complainant filed certain documents to prove his case.  The Complainant and O.P. No. 3 have filed their certain documents in support of their contentions.  No other parties to the present litigation have filed any documents.  Heard from the complainant as well as the Ld. Counsel for O.P. No. 3 & Opp. Party No. 6 at length and perused the case records and material documents available therein.
    
7. In this case, it is an evidentiary fact that the complainant had purchased the alleged Gionee mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. Gionee M-5, IMEI No.860623030402687 and S.IMEI No. 860623030902686 vide Chalan No. – 2746 dated 10.09.2016 for Rs. 22,000/- along with warranty certificate.  Complainant filed document to that effect.  The allegations of complainant is that Six months after it’s use, the said mobile handset showed some defects in its functioning and he did not get it’s utility and in the month of February 2017, he reported the matter to the O.P.No.1 and as per his advise he deposited the said mobile handset with him, who after 30 days returned the said mobile with a false belief that the mobile was repaired, but after some days, the said mobile showed the previous defect along with some additional defects and on approach to the O.P.No.1 regarding the defects, the O.P.No.1 disclosed that the alleged mobile is having manufacturing defect.Though the said submission was challenged by the O.P. No. 2 & 6, but did not choose to file any cogent evidence to that effect by producing any report from their authorized technicians.Hence the allegations of complainant remained unrebuttal from the side of O.P. No. 2 & 6.
    
8. Since the O.P. No.1 did not appear and file his counter nor participated in the hearing, we lost opportunities to come to a conclusion that whether the alleged mobile handset was properly repaired through the expert of the O.P.No.6 i.e. O.P. No. 2 ?  As such, the allegations made by the Complainant became unrebuttal from the side of the O.P. No. 1 also.  
    
9. Further, at the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the O.P.No. 3 has produced certain documents to prove their contentions stating that as on 30.09.2014, they have already left the business of GIONEE mobile in the State of Odisha and handed over all of their charge including Office Items and other liabilities to the O.P. No. 4 i.e. M/s UD Steel Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and said M/s UD Steel Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is the marketer of the GIONEE mobile handset manufactured by O.P. No. 5 i.e. M/s Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd., as such no liability can be conferred upon them.  Since the O.P. No. 4 & 5 are absent throughout the proceeding, as such the contentions of the O.P. No. 3 remained unchallenged being established from the documentary evidence produced by the O.P.No.3.   
    
10. Further, at the time of hearing, except O.P.No. 3, all the Opp. Parties are absent on repeated calls, for which we lost every opportunities to come to know that whether the submissions of the complainant contains any truth or not.  However, the O.P.No. 3 admitted in their counter that the alleged mobile handset in dispute was manufactured by O.P.No.5 which was marketed by O.P. No. 4 and sold to the Complainant through O.P. No. 1.The allegations of the Complainant regarding the fact that after some days of its repair, it showed the previous defects alongwith some additional defects, was well corroborated by him at the time of hearing.No contestant O.Ps are there either to challenge the versions of complainant or to make it contradict.As such the allegations of complainant became unrebuttal from the side of the O.P. No. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6.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 Commission has held that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”
     
11. Further, it is seen that the defects were occurred during the warranty period though the mobile handset was used for 6 months only, which was repaired by the O.P. No. 1, but the same defects were persisted even after of its repair was made, as such the Complainant prayed for refund of the cost of the mobile from the O.Ps.  We feel, the alleged mobile handset must have repaired by the O.P. No. 1 through the local technicians as per his own choice but not by any authorized technicians of O.P.No.5, 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. 1 is clearly establishes the principle of deficiency in service. 
     
12. We feel, had the O.P. No.1 rectified the alleged defects occurred in the mobile handset through one authorized service center set up by the O.P.No.5 i.e. O.P.No.2, then the defects of the mobile handset could have properly rectified, so that the Complainant would not have suffered.  Further it was the duty of O.P.No.1 on the day when he received the alleged mobile handset from the complainant, immediately he was supposed to intimate the O.P.No. 2, 4 & 5 for providing better service to their genuine customer.Further it is seen that since no authorized service center of O.P. No. 5 is available in the present locality, as such the customers who purchase the products of the O.P.No. 5 from the O.P. No. 1 must have depended on him to avail proper service.But without providing better service, as per the norms of the company, the O.P.No. 1 indulged himself in corrupt practice of selling the products and carry out the defects as per his own choice by the help of unauthorized technicians, which is not permissible in the eye of law.
     
13. Further lying the said mobile handset for a long period without any repair and use, in our view, is of no use.
     
14. Further the common A/R for O.P. No. 2 & 6 has submitted that the O.P. No. 6 has taken over all the liabilities of O.P. No. 4 & 5 for any litigation occurred.  Hence considering his submissions, we feel, it is only the O.P. No. 6 who is now-a-days become the sole authority to handle all types of litigations if occurred in regard to the GIONEE mobile handset.   
     
15. 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 No. 1, 2, 4 & 5 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. 5,000/- 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.6, being the sole authority of the alleged mobile handset, is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged mobile handset i.e. Rs. 22,000/- to the complainant and also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- for costs of litigation to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the cost of mobile shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. till payment. 

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 26th day of July, 2018.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.