1. Brief fact of the case of complainant is that he purchased one Micromax Mobile from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. Canvas Spacey No. 91195354844011 and paid Rs. 5,600/- vide challan no. 082 dated 14.08.2016 alongwith warranty certificate and after one month, the said mobile showed several defects in its functioning, for which he consulted with the O.P.No. 1 for its repair, who kept the alleged mobile for about 15 days and returned the same with a false belief of its repair.It is alleged that after using the same for some days, the alleged mobile handset showed the previous defects alongwith some additional defects, for which complainant approached the O.P.No.1 but on reply O.P.No.1 disclosed it as manufacturing defect.Thus showing the deficiency in service of the O.Ps. he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of mobile and Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation expenses to him.
    
2. O.P. No. 1 after receiving the notice, appeared and filed his counter admitting the sale of alleged mobile handset to the Complainant but denied the other allegations stating that after receiving the mobile from complainant he sent to O.P. No. 2 for its repair and after due repair he returned the same to the complainant and thereafter complainant never visited to his shop, thus denying his liability and with other contentions, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.
    
3. On the other hand, the O.P.No.2 though received the notice from the Fora, did not choose to appear in this case nor filed their counter versions nor participated in the hearing also, inspite of repeated adjournments given to them for their submissions keeping in view of natural justice, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them and hence the allegations of complainant remained unchallenged and became unrebuttal from the side of O.P. No. 2.
    
4. Except Complainant no other parties to the present disputes, have filed any documents.  Heard from the Complainant as well as from the O.P.No.1.  Perused the case records and material documents available in the record.
    
5. It is an admitted fact that the alleged mobile handset was purchased by the complainant from the O.P.No.1 bearing model no. Canvas Spacey No. 91195354844011 and paid Rs. 5,600/- vide challan no. 082 dated 14.08.2016 alongwith warranty certificate and after one month, the said mobile showed several defects in its functioning, for which he consulted with the O.P.No. 1 for its repair, who kept the alleged mobile for about 15 days and returned the same.  It is alleged that after using the same for some days, the alleged mobile handset showed the previous defects alongwith some additional defects, for which complainant again approached the O.P.No.1 but on reply O.P.No.1 disclosed it as manufacturing defect.  Whereas, the O.P. No. 1 challenged the versions of complainant but could not produce any cogent evidence.  On the other hand, the O.P. No. 2 though received the notice of the Fora, but did not choose to appear in this case, as such we have no hesitation to disbelieve the versions of the complainant.  Hence such the averments made by the complainant became unrebuttal from the side of the O.Ps No. 2.  In this connections, 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, wherein it is held that that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.” 
    
6. 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.1 contains any truth or not, as such the contentions of the O.P. No. 1 was taken into consideration regarding the fact that the defects were noticed by him and he has sent the alleged mobile handset to the O.P.No.2 for its repair.  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.  There was no any persons from the side of O.P. No. 2 to challenge the versions of the complainant nor any contradiction was brought out, therefore, the allegations of complainant is well established, so also the absence of the O.P.No. 2 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 only for few days, which was repaired by the O.P. No. 1 through 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 Ops have not carried out the service properly to rectify the defects in the alleged mobile handset, for which the alleged mobile handset reiterated its previous defects alongwith some additional defects. 
    
8. We feel, had the Ops rectified the alleged defects occurred in the mobile handset with proper care, then the defects of the mobile handset could have easily and properly rectified, so that the complainant would not have
    
9. Further lying the said mobile handset for 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 non 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. 2,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 500/- towards cost of litigation will meet the end 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. 5,600/- to the complainant and also to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 500/- towards costs of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the costs 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 3^rd day of April, 2019.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.