1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 30.07.2017 the complainant purchased one Samsung LED TV vide its no. UA32FH4003RMXL and S.No.0A2F3ZNJ118492B vide invoice no. 35 dated 30.07.2017 and paid Rs. 21,500/-.  It is alleged that after 2 days, he found some defects on vision problem, sound, discolour on the screen and on the next day i.e. on 01.08.2017 he complained to the O.P. No. 1, who inspected the TV and suggested as it is manufacturing defect.  Further it is alleged that the technicians of O.Ps repaired the alleged TV but the problems was not rectified, whereas the O.P. No. 1 assured for its replacement, but all efforts of complainant went in vein. Thus showing the 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 LED TV and to pay Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.

2. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1 appeared and filed his counter stating that being a retailer of O.P. No. 3 for selling the alleged product, he works on commission basis and is not liable for any manufacturing defects and it is the O.P. No. 2 & 3 who are to comply the same, and showing his no liability, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.

3. The O.P. No. 2 & 3 are being same organization represented through their Ld. Counsel, who appeared in this case, filed their counter in shape of written version admitting the manufacture of the alleged product so also purchase of alleged mobile handset by the complainant from the O.P. No. 1 but denied all other facts contending 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 TV are not in their knowledge, so also nor the complainant intimated them regarding any defect, as such showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
3. Except Complainant no other parties to the present dispute, have filed any documents.  Heard from the complainant as well as from the A/R for O.P. No. 2 & 3.  Perused the documents and materials available in the record.

5. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding purchase of the alleged LED TV by the complainant from the O.P.No.1 bearing no. UA32FH4003RMXL and S.No.0A2F3ZNJ118492B vide invoice no. 35 dated 30.07.2017 and paid Rs. 21,500/-.  Complainant filed document to that effect.  The allegation of complainant is that after 2 days, he found some defects on vision problem, sound, discolour on the screen and on the next day i.e. on 01.08.2017 he complained to the O.P. No. 1, who inspected the TV and suggested as it is manufacturing defect.  Further allegations is that the technicians of O.Ps repaired the alleged TV but the problems was not rectified, whereas the O.P. No. 1 assured for its replacement, but all efforts of complainant went in vein.  O.P. No. 1 has not made any contradiction to the versions of complainant.  As such the allegations regarding the defect in the alleged LED TV is well established.  Though the A/R for O.P. No. 2 & 3 challenged the same stating that the defects occurred in the alleged LED TV are not in their knowledge, but did not adduce cogent evidence either from a expert opinion nor obtained any evidence from their channel partner i.e. O.P.No.1 and though the O.P. No.1 did not challenge the versions of complainant, as such the averments made by the complainant became unrebuttal by the O.Ps.In this connections, we have fortified with the verdicts 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.”
    
5. Further, at the time of hearing, the O.P.No.1 is absent on repeated calls, for which we lost opportunities to come to know that whether the submissions of the O.P.No.2 & 3 contains any truth or not, as such the contentions of the O.P. No. 2 & 3 was taken into consideration regarding the fact that the defects were not in their knowledge.  However, the O.P.No.2 & 3 have admitted that the alleged LED TV in dispute was manufactured by them which has sold by O.P. No. 1 to the complainant.  The allegations of the complainant regarding the fact that while he deposited the LED TV with the O.P.No.1, who after its inspection suggested as a manufacturing defect and assured for its replacement, was well corroborated by him at the time of hearing and the said fact is also not challenged by the O.P. No. 1.  Though the O.P.No.2 & 3 have challenged the same but to make it contrary, they did not file any evidence to that effect, therefore, the allegations of complainant is well  established

7. Further, the defects were occurred within 2 days of its purchase that too during the warranty period, which was supposed to be replaced or repaired by the O.P. No. 1, but without providing his best service, the O.P.No.1 only suggested that the alleged TV is having manufacturing defect, which is not permissible in the eye of law.  As it is the first and foremost duty of the O.P. No. 1 to provide his best services to his genuine customer and had the O.P. No.1 provided the service towards repair of the alleged LED TV than the defects in the TV could have easily rectified and the complainant would not have suffered and in our view, 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 & 3 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 & 3 intended to strictly push the burden of proof on the complainant but miserably failed to make any contradiction regarding existence of any defects.
    
7. We feel, had the O.P. No.1 rectified the alleged defects occurred in the LED TV through the authorized service center set up by the O.P.No.2 & 3, then the defects of the LED TV could have easily and properly rectified, so that the complainant would not have suffered.  But the O.P. No. 1 only suggested that the alleged TV is having manufacturing defects which is not sufficient in the meaning of providing better service.  Further it was the duty of O.P.No.1 on the day when he received the alleged TV from the complainant, immediately he was supposed to intimate the O.P.No. 2 & 3 for providing better service to their genuine customer.  Further it is seen that since there was no service center of O.P.No.2 & 3 at the time of occurrence in the present locality, as such the complainant who purchase the products of the O.P.No.2 & 3 from the O.P. No. 1 must have depended on the O.P.No.1 to avail proper service and without providing better service as per the norms of the company, the O.P.No. 1 indulged himself in corrupt practice of his business, which is bad in law.

9. Further lying the said handset for a period of more 2 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. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- 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 & 3 being the manufacturer of the alleged product is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged LED TV i.e. Rs. 21,500/- to the complainant alongwith Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- for costs of litigation to the complainant within one month from the receipt of this order, failing which the cost of TV will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till payment.  Further the complainant is directed to hand over the alleged LED TV to the O.P.No.2 & 3 at the time of complying the order by them.

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 4^th day of September, 2019. 

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.