1. The fact of the case of complainant is that on 12.02.2019 he purchased one inverter vide its no. UPS LUM ZELI SINE WAVE 1100/12 V 19HB70C1002842 alongwith Luminous Battery No. 12V150AH,SC 18054 FNSD LAI405E1522860 from O.P.No.1 vide invoice no. POS 78068 for Rs. 18,800/- dated 12.02.2019 with warranty of two years. It is alleged that since the day of purchase of the alleged product, it shows several defects and made sound maximum times and the same was complained to the O.P. No. 1 who repaired the same stating as minor defects, but on March 2020 the inverter became dead.It is also alleged that on May 2020 the mechanic of O.P. No.1 took the alleged product for its repair but did not return the same and since then, the alleged product was lying with the O.P. No. 1, thus showing deficiency in service, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the costs of product and to pay Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5000/- towards compensation and costs to him.
    
2. The O.P. No.1 though received the notice from this Fora, 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, the O.P. No.2 appeared in this case admitting the sale of alleged battery to the complainant but strictly denied the allegations of complainant contending that their products are manufactured under most stringent quality control standards, supervision and checks.  It is also contended that the during the COVID – 19 pandemic situation, they have registered the complaint of complainant and resolved the same by their expert service engineer and also they have provided their best services to the complainant even in the pandemic situation also.  It is also contended that their engineer had approached the complainant to produce the warranty card either for repair or for its replacement, but the complainant did not agree and filed the case which is devoid of merits, and with other contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case.
    
4. Complainant has filed certain documents in support of his allegations, whereas the O.P. No.2 has filed only authorization letter in favour of their A/R.  Heard from the parties present.  Perused the case record and materials available therein.
    
5. In the case in hand, it is an evidentiary fact that on complainant has purchased the alleged inverter alongwith the battery of O.P. No. 2 from the O.P. No. 1 vide invoice no. POS 78068 for Rs. 18,800/- dated 12.02.2019.  Complainant filed document to that effect.  The allegations of complainant is that since the day of purchase, the alleged product showed several defects, which was repaired by the O.P. No.1 but since March 2020 the alleged product was became dead.  Since the O.P. No. 1 is totally absent throughout the proceeding, as such we lost every opportunity to come to a conclusion whether the alleged product was properly repaired through the technicians of O.P. No.2.  Though the allegations are challenged by the A/R for O.P. No.2, but miserably failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove their contentions, as such the allegations made against the O.Ps. are remained unchallenged and unrebuttal. 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.  It is also ascertained from the submissions of the parties that the complainant has used the alleged product for about one year, as such we do not think the complainant is entitled for any compensation and costs. Hence considering the submissions of the parties, 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. 2 being the manufacturer of the alleged battery is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged product of Rs. 18,800/- only 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.  Parties to bear own costs.  

Pronounced in the open Court on this the 28^th day of January, 2021.

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.