1. The fact of the case of Complainant is that on 04.07.02016 he purchased one Luminous Battery bearing model no.  LES 78 & TTV16 and serial no. 14G307 E1523614 from O.P.No.1 on dated 04.07.2016 and paid Rs. 11,000/-.  It is alleged that 16 months after its use, the said battery stopped its function and became defunct due to some inherent defect, as such he reported the matter to the O.P.No.1, who inspected the battery and sent it for its repair to the service center of O.P.No.2 & 3 and was advised to come after one month.It is also alleged that after one month, while the complainant went to the O.P. No.1 to get back his battery but was returned back with battery without its repair by O.P.No.1. 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 battery i.e. Rs. 11,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.
    
2. After receipt the notice from this Fora, the O.P. No. 1 though appeared in this case, but did not choose to file his counter version inspite of repeated opportunities were provided to him keeping in view of natural justice, so also he did not participate in the hearing, hence, we lost every opportunities to hear from.  As such, the allegations of complainant became unrebuttal and remained unchallenged from the side of O.P.No.1.
    
3. On the other hand, inspite of valid notice of the Fora properly served on the O.P. No. 2 & 3, who are belonged to the same and one company, through Regd. Post vide RL No.  RO842787625 dated 25.12.2017, they did not choose to appear before the Fora nor they have filed their respective counter versions nor participated in the proceeding also, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from the O.Ps.
    
4. Complainant has filed certain documents to prove his submissions.  Since the O.Ps have not appeared, though received the notice from the Fora, the documents filed by the complainant remained unchallenged.  Heard from the Complainant at length and non filing of the counter by the O.P.No.1 and non appearance in the instant case and not participating in the present proceeding by the O.P. No9. 2 & 3, the allegations of complainant remained unrebuttal.
    
5. In the case in hand, it is an evidentiary fact that on 04.07.02016 complainant purchased one Luminous Battery bearing model no.  LES 78 & TTV16 and serial no. 14G307 E1523614 from O.P.No.1 on dated 04.07.2016 and paid Rs. 11,000/-.  Complainant has filed document to that effect. His allegation is that 16 months after its use, the said battery stopped its function and became defunct due to some inherent defects, as such he reported the matter to the O.P. No.1, who inspected the batter and sent it for its repair to the service center of O.P.No.2 & 3 and was advised to come after one month and that after one month, while the complainant went to the O.P. No.1 to get back his battery but was returned back with battery without its repair by O.P.No.1.  And all the allegations are remained unchallenged and unrebuttal from the side of all the O.Ps.  As such, there is no scope for disbelieve the allegations of complainant.
         In this connections, we have come across the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another, wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that –“Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted”.
    
6. It is well settled principle that for any act of act of dealer, manufacturer is liable, had there been no any principal to principal relationship exists between the manufacturer and dealer.  Hence considering the submissions of the complainant, we feel, it is the manufacturer who supplied the alleged battery to their dealer, which reiterates is defects time and again, as such, the manufacturer is fully liable to compensate the complainant.  Hence this order.
                                                                               ORDER 

             Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, the complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. 3 being the manufacturer of the alleged battery is herewith directed to refund the cost of the battery of Rs. 11,000/- and also to pay Rs. 3000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2000/- towards costs of litigation to the Complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order, failing which, the costs of battery will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of purchase till payment.

            Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 10^th day of July, 2018.

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.