1. The fact of the case of Complainant is that on 22.05.2016 he purchased one Microtek Inverter UPS bearing serial no. 90SEB2 for Rs. 5,500/- from O.P.No.1 vide retail invoice no. 493 dated 22.05.2016.  It is alleged that 6 months after its purchase, the said inverter-Ups stopped its function by not receiving any charges, as such he reported the matter the O.P. No.1 inspected the inverter through his mechanic, but the same could not rectified, hence the O.P. No. 1 reported the matter to their main dealer at Berhampur and also to the O.P.No.2 vide complaint registration no. 4004181903 dated 19.06.2017, who did not responded properly, as such the O.P.No.1 expressed his inability to rectify the same stating the said inverter is having inherent defects.Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps, Complainant has filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of the inverter for Rs. 5,500/- and Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.
2. On the other hand, inspite of notices of this Fora properly served on the O.Ps, the O.Ps did not choose to appear before this Fora nor they have filed their respective counter versions nor participated in the proceeding, as such we lost opportunity to hear from both the O.Ps and the case is proceeded on exparte hearing.
3. Complainant has filed certain documents showing the correspondence made between the Complainant and the O.P. No. 1 along with Retail Invoice and warranty certificate issued by the O.Ps.
4. We heard from the Complainant at length, and non appearance in the instant case and not participating in the present proceeding by the O.P.s, the allegations of complainant remained unchallenged.
5. In the case in hand, it is an evidentiary fact that on 22.05.2016 the Complainant had purchased one Microtek Inverter bearing serial no. 90SEB2 for Rs. 5,500/- from O.P.No.1 vide retail invoice no. 493 dated 22.05.2016.  The allegations of Complainant is that 6 months after its purchase, the said inverter-UPs stopped its function by not receiving any charges, as such he reported the matter to the O.P. No.1, who inspected the said UPs through his mechanic, but the same could not rectified, hence the O.P. No. 1 reported the matter to their main Dealer at Berhampur and also to the O.P.No.2 vide complaint registration no. 4004181903 dated 19.06.2017, who did not responded properly, as such the O.P.No.1 expressed his inability to rectify the same stating the said inverter UPs is having inherent defects.The averments made by the Complainant remained unchallenged due to non appearance of the Opposite Parties in the present proceeding, as such the allegation of the Complainant became unremitted from the side of Opposite Parties.Therefore, we have no hesitation to disbelieve the versions of the Complainant. In the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another, Hon’ble National Commission has held that –“Unremitted averments shall be deemed to be admitted”.
6. Further as per the submissions of Complainant, it is well proved that the defects in the alleged inverter UPs occurred after 6 months of its use, as such it did not render the service for which it was purchased, even though several complaints lodged with the O.Ps both in written as well as complaint lodged through their toll free number yielded no results and all the incidents occurred within the valid warranty period.   Further the allegations of Complainant to the effect that the said inverter UPs lying unused since the day from its first complaint lodged with O.P.No.1, from which it can be concluded that lying the said inverter as unused for nearly about 2 years, is of no use.
7. Further inspite of several opportunities and adjournments given to the O.Ps keeping in view of natural justice, the O.Ps neither choose to appear before this Fora nor participated in the present proceeding, as such, we lost opportunities to ascertain about the exact defects / problems occurred in the alleged inverter UPs.  Had the O.Ps appear and submit their versions before us, then it could have ascertained that whether the alleged inverter UPs was having any inherent manufacturing defect or not, hence such absence of the O.Ps in the present proceeding makes the allegations and submissions of the complainant strong and vital.
8. From the above discussions, it is well proved that there is clear case of inherent defect in the alleged inverter UPs purchased by the Complainant, which makes the Complainant entitle for refund of cost of the alleged inverter UPs from the Opposite Parties.  And not providing the better service to their valuable customer, the O.Ps have proved deficiency in service on their part, for which, the Complainant was compelled to file this case incurring some expenses, as such, we feel, he deserves some compensation and costs and considering his sufferings Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1000/- towards compensation and costs will meet the end of justice.  Hence this order.
                                                                                    ORDER

Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, the complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. 2 being the manufacturer of the alleged inverter is herewith directed to refund the cost of the inverter of Rs. 5,500/- and also herewith directed to pay Rs. 2000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1000/- towards costs of litigation to the Complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order, failing which, the compensation amount shall carry 10% interest per annum from the date of Judgment.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 4^th day of April, 2018. 

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.