1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that on 21.09.2016 he purchased one Vivo mobile phone from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. VIVO – Y51C MAX, IMEI No. 861750035029238 & 1633039467031401 vide challan no. 096 dated 21.09.2016 for consideration of Rs. 10,000/-.  It is alleged that after its purchase, the alleged mobile handset showed some defects in its functioning, for which on 15.10.2016 he approached the O.P. No. 1 to repair, and as per his advise, complainant handed over the alleged mobile handset with O.P. No. 1 and after 2 days, O.P. No. 1 returned the mobile handset with a false belief of being repaired.It is further alleged that after using for some days, complainant found the same defects alongwith some additional defects and on approach to the O.P. No. 1, he replied that the alleged mobile is having manufacturing defects.Thus with other allegations, alleging 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 refund the costs of mobile handset and to pay Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.
    
2. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1 after receiving the notice of this Fora, appeared in this case and filed his counter admitting the sale of the alleged mobile handset to the complainant and also admitted that the complainant has brought his mobile handset for repair and he returned the same after being repaired, but denied the allegations of the complainant contending that the complainant has never visited further to his shop for lodging further complaints, thus denying his liabilities, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.
    
3. The O.P. No. 2 & 2 through received the notice from the Fora, but did not choose to appear before nor filed their counter version nor also participated in the hearing, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them and all the allegations of complainant remained unchallenged and unrebuttal from the side of O.P. No. 2 & 3.
    
4. Except complainant no other parties to the present dispute, have filed any documents.  Heard from the complainant as well as from the O.P.No. 1.  Rest Opp. Parties are absent throughout the proceeding, as such the document filed by the complainant remained unchallenged.  Perused the record and material documents available therein. 
    
5. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding purchase of the alleged mobile handset by the complainant on 21.09.2016 from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. VIVO – Y51C MAX, IMEI No. 861750035029238 & 1633039467031401 vide challan no. 096 dated 21.09.2016 for consideration of Rs. 10,000/-.  The allegations of complainant is that after its purchase, the alleged mobile handset showed some defects in its functioning, for which on 15.10.2016 he approached the O.P. No. 1 for its repair, and as per his advise, he handed over the alleged mobile handset with O.P. No. 1 and after 2 days, O.P. No. 1 returned the mobile handset but complainant found the same defects alongwith some additional defects and on approach to the O.P. No. 1, he replied that the alleged mobile is having manufacturing defects.  Though the versions of complainant is challenged by the O.P. No. 1 but to make it contrary, the O.P. No. 1 did not produce any cogent evident to that effect i.e. complaint registered being maintained for such period.  Therefore, the plea of O.P. No. 1 cannot be accepted at this moment.  Since the O.P. No. 2 & 3 did not appear throughout the proceeding to make any contradictions, we lost opportunities every opportunities to hear from them so also to come to a conclusion that whether the alleged mobile handset was having any manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant.  Further absence of O.P. No. 2 & 3 made it clear that they have nothing to say in this regard.
    
6. Further it is seen that in the present locality, since there is no authorized service centre of the O.P. No. 2 & 3, as such the customers who purchase the product of the O.P. No. 2 & 3 from the O.P. No. 1, must have depended on the service of the O.P. No. 1, and it is the bounden duty of the O.P. No. 1 to provide better service to their genuine customers like the complainant.  Though the O.P. No. 2 & 3 have received the notice from the Fora but did not choose to participate in the hearing to make any contradiction, therefore, the allegations of complainant is well established, so also the absence of the O.P.No. 2 & 3 makes the averments of complainant strong and vital.
    
7. Further at the time of hearing, it is also averred by the complainant that due to unfair trade practice followed by the O.P. No.1 he could not get the utility of the alleged mobile handset and the handset is lying dead.  From the record, it is ascertained that the O.P. No.1 though have filed his counter stating that the complainant has never come to his shop but miserably failed to produce any cogent evidence to that effect,    hence the versions of O.P.No.1 is not believable at this stage. 
    
8. Further, the defects were occurred during the warranty period though the mobile handset was used for some days, which was repaired by the O.P. No. 1 but the same defects exhibited alongwith some additional defects.  We feel, the O.P. No. 1 might not have repaired the alleged mobile handset through the authorized service centre of O.P. No. 2 & 3 for which the alleged mobile exhibited previous defects alongwith some additional defects, which is not permissible in the eye of law, as it is the first and foremost duty of the O.P. No. 1 to provide his best services to his genuine customer i.e. complainant as the O.P. No. 2 & 3 having no authorized service center in the present locality, and had the O.P. No.1 provided the service in proper manner towards repair of the alleged mobile handset than the defects in the mobile handset could have easily rectified and the complainant would not have suffered and in our view, such type of practice adopted by the O.P. No. 1 is clearly established the principle of deficiency in service.
    
9. Further it was the duty of O.P.No.1 that on the day when he received the alleged mobile handset from the complainant, immediately he was supposed to intimate the O.P.No. 2 & 3 for providing better service to their genuine customer.  But without providing better service to his customer, the O.P.No.1 left the complainant in a mid-way where the complainant would not get any source to sort out the problems, which is also not permissible as per law.  Further since there is no authorized service center in the present locality, it is the prime duty of the O.Ps. No. 2 & 3 to check over such matter and day to day activity and upgradation of their service strategy in the market, but without doing so, the O.P. No. 2 & 3 kept silent over the matter, which attract the principle of unfair trade practice.Further lying the said mobile handset for a period about 2 and ½ years without any use, in our view, is of no use.
    
10. Hence considering the above discussions, we feel, the complainant deserves to be compensated with adequate compensation and costs for not providing better and proper 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. 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. 2 & 3 being the marketer and manufacturer of the alleged product, are herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged mobile handset i.e. Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the cost of mobile handset shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till payment.

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 8^th day of May, 2019.      

       Issue free copy to the parties concerned.