1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 20.05.2019 he purchased one cooler of vide Sl. No. 110019 Symphony Tuch 35 vide no. 1261248054945 vide invoice no. 477 dated 20.05.2019 and paid Rs. 23,000/-.  It is alleged that after 2 months of its use, the said cooler did not function properly and stopped automatically,  for which he contacted with the O.P. who kept the said cooler for about 15 day for its repair and returned the same.  After using for about 1 & ½ months, he found the previous defects alongwith some additional defects like noise comes out of the motor, for which he handover the said cooler to O.P. for its proper repair. But without repair the same, the O.P. returned the cooler saying it as having manufacturing defects, but the complainant did not left the cooler with the O.P.Further it is alleged that on demand, the O.P. neither repaired the same nor refunded the costs of alleged product, thus showing deficiency in service, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.P. to refund the costs of alleged product and Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.

2. O.P. appeared in this case, but did not choose to file his counter version in spite of ample opportunities given to him, however O.P. was given opportunities to participate in the hearing. 

3. Complainant filed certain documents in support of his submissions, whereas the O.P. did not choose to file any documents.

4. It is a documentary fact that on 20.05.2019 complainant  purchased one cooler of vide Sl. No. 110019 Symphony Tuch 35 vide no. 1261248054945 vide invoice no. 477 dated 20.05.2019 and paid Rs. 23,000/-.  The allegations of complainant is that after 2 months of its use, the said cooler did not function properly and stopped automatically,  for which he contacted with the O.P. who after keeping the said cooler for about 15 day for its repair and returned the same.  Further allegations is that after using the same for about 1 & ½ months, he found the previous defects alongwith some additional defects like noise comes out of the motor.  Since the O.P. did not choose to counter versions, as such we lost every opportunities to come to know whether the alleged cooler properly repaired by the authorized technicians of the company.  As such there is no question of disbelieve the versions of complainant.Though the O.P. challenged the same stating that the defects were properly repaired, but did not adduce cogent evidence to that effect, as such the averments made by the complainant became unrebuttal.In this connection, we have fortified with the Judgement 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.”

5. Further, the defects were occurred during the warranty period though the alleged cooler was used only for 2 months, which was repaired by the O.P., but the same defects were persisted even after of its repair was made by O.P., as such the complainant prayed for the cost of the mobile from the O.P.  We feel, the alleged cooler must have repaired by the O.P. through the local technicians but not by any authorized technicians of company, for which the alleged cooler reiterated its previous defects and in our view, such type of practice adopted by the O.P. is clearly established the principle of deficiency in service. 

6. We feel, had the O.P. rectified the alleged defects occurred in the cooler through technicians of company, then the defects of the cooler could have easily and properly rectified, so that the complainant would not have suffered.  Further it was the duty of O.P. on the day when he received the alleged cooler from the complainant, immediately, he was supposed to intimate the concerned company for providing better service to his genuine customer.  Further it is seen that in the present locality, though there is no service center, as such the customers who purchase the products from the O.P. must have depended on the O.P. to avail proper service.  But without providing better service, as per the norms of the company, the O.P. 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.

7. 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.P. to his valuable customer like the complainant, as the complainant must have suffered some mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment, for which he was compelled to file this case incurring some expenses.  Hence this order.

ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part and the O.P. is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged cooler i.e. Rs. 23,000/- to the complainant alongwith Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant.  All the above direction is to be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the costs of product shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till payment.

           Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 13^th day of August, 2020.

          Issue free copy to the parties concerned.