1. The brief fact of the case of Complainant is that on 21.12.2015 he purchased one Samsung Mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. Samsung J700, IMEI No. 352840/07/806226/5 & 352841/07/806226/3 and paid Rs. 15,000/- vide challan no. 53 dated 21.12.2015 alongwith warranty certificate.  It is alleged that 7 months after its purchase, the said mobile handset showed some defects in its functioning and he did not get its utility and on July, 2017, he deposited the alleged mobile with the O.P.No.1, who after 25 days, returned the said computer with a false belief that the mobile was repaired, but after some days, the said mobile showed the previous defect alongwith some additional defects.That on approach to the O.P.No.1 regarding the defects, the O.P.No.1 disclosed that the alleged mobile is having manufacturing defect and expressed his inability to repair, thus alleging 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 cost of the mobile handset and to pay Rs. 40,000/- 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,  appear in this case and filed his counter / written version admitting the purchase of alleged mobile handset by the Complainant from him but denied the other allegations stating that since the alleged mobile handset was logged with water as such the same does not cover under warranty and body of the mobile handset was in broken condition when the Complainant brought the alleged mobile handset for repair, thus denying his liability and with other contentions, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.
    
3. The O.P. No. 2 is represented through their Ld. Counsel, who appeared in this case, filed their counter in shape of written version admitting the purchase of alleged mobile handset by the Complainant but denied all other facts contending that they have “Principal to Principal” relation with their channel partners and also contended that the alleged handset is a well established product in the market over a period of years and all those products are put through stringent control system, quality checks by the quality department before dispatch to the market.Further they contended that the Complainant has not produced any expert opinion report to prove his allegation and also the defects in the said mobile are not in their knowledge, so also neither the Complainant nor the O.P.No.1 have intimated them regarding any defect, as such showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
4. Complainant has filed certain documents like copy of retail invoice and copy of service job sheet in support of his case, whereas no other parties to the present disputes have filed any documents.  Heard from the Complainant as well as from the A/R for Opp. Parties.  Perused the documents and materials available in the record.  
    
5. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding purchase of the alleged mobile handset by the Complainant from the O.P.No.1 bearing model no. Samsung J700, IMEI No. 352840/07/806226/5 & 352841/07/806226/3 and paid Rs. 15,000/- vide challan no. 53 dated 21.12.2015 alongwith warranty certificate and the Complainant has filed documents to that effect.  It is also submitted by the Complainant that 7 months after its purchase, the said mobile handset showed some defects in its functioning and he did not get its utility and on July, 2017, he deposited the same with the O.P.No.1, who after 25 days, returned the said computer with a false belief that the mobile was repaired, but after some days, the said mobile showed the previous defect alongwith some additional defects. Whereas the contention of O.P.No.1 is that the alleged mobile handset was affected by water logging and no warranty covers the same, but did not filed any documentary evidence to that effect.  It is also a question that without any evidence how the O.P.No.1 came to know that the alleged mobile handset is damaged by water logging ?It is well settled of law that without any cogent evidence, the plea regarding water logging cannot be accepted.Further the contentions of O.P. No. 2 regarding the effect that the Complainant has not produced any technical expert opinion report, as such the defects in the alleged mobile handset cannot be accepted.Whereas the job sheet filed by the Complainant clearly indicates that the alleged mobile handset was not affected by water logging nor that was in broken condition.Though the O.P.No.2 challenged the same stating that the defects occurred in the mobile handset are not in their knowledge, but the same cannot be accepted as the job sheet was issued by their authorized service center i.e. Sprimon Technologies vide their job sheet no. 2147, hence the pleas of both the Opp. Parties cannot be believable at any angle. As such the averments made by the Complainant became unrebuttal from the side of the O.Ps.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 that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”
    
6. Further, at the time of hearing also the O.P.No.1 did not produce any document in support of his case, for which we lost opportunities to come to know that whether the submissions of the O.P.No.2 contains any truth or not, as such due to lack of evidence laid by the O.P.No.1, the contentions of the O.P. No. 2 was taken into consideration regarding the defects were not in their knowledge.  However, the O.P.No.2 has admitted that the alleged mobile handset in dispute was manufactured by them which was sold by the O.P. No. 1 to the Complainant.  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.We feel, the O.P.No.1 without repairing the alleged mobile handset through the authorised service center of O.P.No.2, has only taken the false plea to hide his own fault.Though the O.P.No.2 have challenged the same but to make it contrary, they did not file any evidence to that effect, therefore, the allegations of Complainant is wellestablished, so also the misrepresentations of the O.P.No.1 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 7 months, which was repaired by the O.P. No. 1, but the same defects were persisted alongwith some additional defects even after of its repair was made by O.P. No.1, as such the Complainant prayed for the cost of the mobile from the O.Ps.  We feel, the alleged mobile handset has never been repaired by the O.P. No. 1, for which the alleged mobile handset reiterated its previous defects alongwith some additional defects and such type of practice adopted by the O.P. No. 1 is clearly established the principle of deficiency in service.  Though the submissions of Complainant was challenged by the O.P.No.2 contending that replacement or refund of cost cannot be made without any expert opinion report made to that effect, which seems that O.P.NO.2 intended to strictly push the burden of proof on the Complainant but miserably failed to make any contradiction to the effect that of existence of the defects. 
    
8. We feel, had the O.P. No.1 rectified the alleged defects occurred in the mobile handset through the authorized service center set up by the O.P.No.2, then the defects of the mobile handset could have easily and properly rectified, so that the Complainant would not have suffered.  Further it was the duty of O.P.No.1 on the day when he received the alleged mobile handset from the Complainant, immediately he was supposed to intimate the O.P.No.2 for providing better service to their genuine customer.Further it is seen that in the present locality, there was no authorizedservice center of O.P.No.2 at the time of occurrence, as such the customers who purchase the products of the O.P.No.2 from the O.P. No. 1 must have depended on the O.P.No.1 to avail proper service.But without providing better service, as per the norms of the company, the O.P.No. 1 indulged himself in corrupt practice of selling the products, which is not permissible in the eye of law.
   
   9. Further lying the said mobile handset for about one 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 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. 2000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1000/- 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 being the manufacturer of the alleged product is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged mobile handset i.e. Rs. 15,000/- to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of this order.  Further the O.P.No.1 is herewith directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- for costs of litigation to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.  Further the Complainant is directed to hand over the alleged mobile handset to the O.P.No.2 at the time of complying the order by them.

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 20^th day of April, 2018.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.

                 Sd/-                                                                            Sd/-

            Member                                                                    President (I/c)