1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that on 31.07.2017 he purchased one Samsung Mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing Model No. SM-G615FZKDINS having IMEI No. 358344/08/503842/0 & 358345/08/503842/7 and paid Rs. 17,900/- vide retail invoice no. 253 and 4 months after its purchase, the handset showed some defects like overheat problem in a little charge of battery and became dead for which he reported the defects of the mobile to the O.P.No.1, who kept the handset for about 15 days with him and without any repair returned the handset suggesting to contact with O.P. No. 3, being authorized service center.And on contact to O.P. No. 3 who lodged the claim vide no. 4251435119 dated 15.12.2017.It is alleged that after 10 to 15 days of its repair, the handset showed its previous defects and became totally defunct and on contact to O.P. No. 3 regarding the defects, he returned the mobile handset having manufacturing defects, thus, with other submissions, showing the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps, he filed this case with a pray to direct the O.Ps either to replace or refund the cost of the mobile handset and Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation to him.
    
2. On the other hand, though the O.P. No. 1 & 3 received the notice from this Fora, but did not choose to appear nor filed their respective counter version nor also participated in the hearing inspite of several opportunities given to them keeping in view of natural justice, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them and the allegations made against them remained unchallenged and unrebuttal.  
    
3. The O.P.No.2 represented through their authorized representative who appeared in this case, filed their counter denying their liabilities with the contentions that since the complainant has not filed any expert opinion report as required u/s 13(1)(c) of the Act, in respect of the defects occurred in the alleged handset, as such there is no unfair trade practice on their part.  Further they have contended that the alleged products was purchased by the complainant after being satisfied with its performances, which was put through stringent control system, quality checks by the quality department before being cleared for despatch to the market and since the complainant has not approached them at any time, as such denying their liabilities with other contentions they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
4. Except complainant no parties to the present dispute have filed any documents to prove their submissions.  Perused the record and documents available therein.  
    
5. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the alleged Samsung Mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing Model No. SM-G615FZKDINS having IMEI No. 358344/08/503842/0 & 358345/08/503842/7 and paid Rs. 17,900/- vide retail invoice no. 253 and filed document to that effect.  The allegations of complainant is that 4 months after its purchase, the handset showed some defects like overheat problem in a little charge of battery and became dead for which he contacted with the O.P.No.1, who kept the handset for about 15 days with him and without any repair returned the handset suggesting to contact with O.P. No. 3, being authorized service center.  The said versions is never challenged by any O.Ps.  Though the O.P. No. 1 is totally absent throughout the proceeding, as such allegations of complainant remained unchallenged from the side of O.P. No. 1.  Further on contact to O.P. No. 3 who lodged the claim vide no. 4251435119 dated 15.12.2017 is also not a disputed one by any O.Ps and further allegations of complainant that after 10 to 15 days of its repair, the handset showed its previous defects and became totally defunct and on contact to O.P. No. 3 regarding the defects, he returned the mobile handset having manufacturing defects, is also not a disputed one.  Hence the allegations of complainant against the O.P. No. 1 & 3 are remained unchallenged and unrebuttal.   In the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another, Hon’ble National Commission has held that –“Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted”.   
    
6. Further as per the versions of O.P. No. 2, it is found that the alleged mobile might have processed through stringent control system, quality checks by the quality department before being cleared for despatch to the market, but they have never challenged regarding the defects, if any, occurred in the alleged mobile handset, rather they have only demanded the expert opinion report from the Complainant.  Though the O.P. No. 2 strictly challenged the said facts contending that neither the Complainant nor the O.P. No. 1 have intimated about the said defects of the alleged mobile handset to them, as such the defects in the alleged handset are not in their knowledge, otherwise they could have rectified the defects found out by the Complainant. But to prove their submissions, they have not adduced any evidence from the O.P. No. 3 who is their authorized service center, hence only oral submissions cannot be believable at this stage.   Further, the defects were occurred within the warranty period, though the alleged mobile handset was used for about 4 months, but such allegations of Complainant was strongly challenged by the O.P. No. 2 contending that they have never received any information regarding the defect of the alleged mobile from the O.P.No.1.  As such we feel, the alleged mobile handset was defective one being sold by the O.P.No.1, for which, the alleged handset reiterated its original defects and reiterated the same and such type of practice adopted by O.Ps has clearly established the deficiency in service on their part. 
    
7. Further lying the said mobile handset for more than two years without any use, in our view, is of no use.
    
8. 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 mental agony and physical harassment, for which the complainant was compelled to file this case incurring some expenses.Considering his suffering we feel a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and costs 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. of Rs. 17,900/- alongiwth Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the cost of mobile handset will carry interest @ 10% p.a. till payment.  Further the complainant is directed to hand over the alleged defective mobile handset to the concerned person of the O.P.No. 2 at the time of complying the above order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 6^th day of December, 2019.

Issue free copies to the parties concerned.