1. Brief fact of the case of complainant is that he purchased one LED TV from O.P.No.1 bearing no. 1778170000019 and M170000106717 and paid Rs. 33,000/- vide invoice no. 25469 dated 06.01.2019 alongwith warranty certificate and after one month of its use, the said TV showed overheat performances on its body part for which he consulted with the O.P.No. 1 for its repair, who sent the said mobile to the O.P. No. 2 and suggested to come after 1 ½ or 2 month.  It is alleged that during the month of May while he contacted with O.P. No. 1, who suggested to come after one month stating that the alleged  T.V. has not yet been received from O.P. No.2, and in the month of June, he received the alleged T.V. from O.P. No.1 and found that the previous defects alongwith lining visible on the screen and pictures are not clearly visible.It is also alleged that on approach to O.P. No. 1, who received the alleged T.V. and kept the same till January, 2020 with one pretext or the other and the alleged defective TV is lying with the O.P. No. 1.Thus showing the deficiency in service of the O.Ps. he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of alleged T.V. and Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation expenses to him.

2. The O.P. No. 1 though received the notice from the Commission, did not choose to appear in this case and nor filed his counter versions nor participated in the hearing also, inspite of repeated adjournments given to him for his  submissions keeping in view of natural justice, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from him and as such the allegations of complainant remained unchallenged and became unrebuttal from the side of O.P. No. 1

3. On the other hand, the O.P.No.2 though received the notice from the Commission, did not choose to appear in this case nor filed their counter versions nor participated in the hearing also, inspite of repeated adjournments given to them for their submissions keeping in view of natural justice, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them and the allegations of complainant remained unchallenged and became unrebuttal from the side of O.P. No. 2 also.

4. Except Complainant no other parties to the present disputes, have filed any documents.  Complainant has filed invoice bill issued by O.P. No. 1 and warranty certificate issued by O.P. No. 2.  Heard from the complainant at length.  Perused the case records and material documents available in the record.

5. It is an evidentiary fact that the O.P. No. 1 has sold the alleged L.D. T.V. to the complainant bearing no. 1778170000019 and M170000106717 and paid Rs. 33,000/- vide invoice no. 25469 dated 06.01.2019 alongwith warranty certificate.  The allegations of complainant is that after one month use, the said TV showed overheat performances on its body part for which he consulted with the O.P.No. 1 for its repair, who sent the said mobile to the O.P. No. 2 and suggested to come after 1 to 2 month.It is also alleged that during the month of May while he contacted with O.P. No. 1, who suggested to come after one month stating that the alleged T.V. has not yet been received from O.P. No.2, and in the month of June, he received the alleged T.V. from O.P. No.1 and found that the previous defects alongwith lining visible on the screen and pictures are not clearly visible.It is also alleged that on approach to O.P. No. 1, who received the alleged T.V. and kept the same till January, 2020 with one pretext or the other and the alleged defective TV is lying with the O.P. No. 1.Though the O.P. No. 1 received the notice of the Commission, but did not choose to appear in this case, as such we have no hesitation to disbelieve the versions of the complainant.It is also observed that the O.P. No. 2 has also received the notice from this Commission, but did appear throughout the proceeding, as such the averments made by the complainant regarding manufacturing defect, became unrebuttal from the side of the O.Ps No. 2.Since no contradiction made out by the O.Ps, we have no hesitation to disbelieve the version of complainant.In this connection, 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, wherein it is held that that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”

6. Further, it is observed that the defects were occurred during the warranty period though the T.V. was used for only for one month, 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 O.P. No. 1 has not repaired the alleged T.V. properly, for which the alleged T.V. reiterated its previous defects alongwith some additional defects and in our view, such  type of practice adopted by the O.P. No. 1 is clearly established the principle of deficiency in service. 
    
7. We feel, had the O.P. No.1 rectified the alleged defects occurred in the T.V. with proper procedure, then the defects of the T.V. could have easily and properly rectified, so that the complainant would not have suffered.  Further, being the manufacturer, it was the duty of O.P.No.2 to check out the day to day activities of their authorized dealer and service center as they have set up such platform only to provide better service to their genuine customers. By not taking proper steps for providing better service, the O.P. No. 1 & 2  have established their inefficiency in providing service.  Further it is seen that in the present locality, though there is no authorized service center is set up, 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 practice of providing improper service, which is not permissible.  Further lying the said alleged LED T.V. for about 3 years without any use, in our view, is of no use.

8. 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. 2,000/- 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.1 is herewith directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of purchase till payment.  Further the O.P. No. 2 being the manufacturer of the alleged product is herewith directed to refund the cost of the LED T.V. i.e. Rs. 33,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 06.01.2019 till payment.  Further the O.P. No. 2 is at liberty to collect the alleged product from the O.P. No. 1, if they desire to do so. 

          Pronounced in the open Court on this the 16^th day of August, 2022.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.