1. Brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 17.11.2017 he purchased one B.M. water cooler having its Sl. No. BA24347752 from O.P. No. 1 and paid Rs. 39,000/- vide invoice no. 71 dated 17.11.2017 alongwith warranty certificate.  It is alleged that using after one month, the said cooler exhibited problems, for which he contacted with the O.P. No.1 and narrated the facts, who after keeping the said cooler for a week, returned the same after its repair.But after two months the said cooler exhibited the defects alongwith some additional defects like noise sound and on contact with the O.P. No.1 who denied to repair the same.Thus with other allegations, he filed this case with a prayer to get back the costs of the cooler and also claimed for Rs. 50,000/- and 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation.

2. The O.P. No. 1 though received the notice from the Commission as on 10.08.2018, but did not choose to appear in this case nor filed his counter version nor participated in the hearing also, as such we lost every opportunities to know about the facts. 

3. The O.P. No. 2 though received the notice from the Commission which was sent through Regd. Post vide R.L. No. RO954442258IN dated 24.07.2018, but did not choose to appear in this case, nor filed his counter version nor also participated in the hearing, inspite of ample opportunities given to them, keeping in view of natural justice, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them.

4. Since O.Ps have not appeared throughout the proceedings, the allegations made against them remained unchallenged and unrebuttal.  Hence we have no hesitation to disbelieve the versions of complainant. During hearing, we heard only from the complainant.  Perused the case record and material documents available therein.

5. It is a documentary fact that the complainant has purchased the alleged product from the O.P.No. 1 being manufactured by the O.P. No.2. alongwith warranty certificate.  The allegation of complainant is that using after one month, the said cooler exhibited problems, for which he contacted with the O.P. No.1 and narrated the facts, who after keeping the said cooler for a week, returned the same after its repair.But after two months the said cooler exhibited the defects alongwith some additional defects like noise sound and on contact with the O.P. No.1 who denied to repair the same.Since no dispute / contradictions made out by the O.Ps. the adverse view drawn in favour of the O.Ps and the allegations made, remained unchallenged and unrebuttal from the side of O.Ps and we have no hesitation to disbelieve the allegations of Complainant.In this connection, 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, wherein it is held that that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”

6. Further, the defects in the alleged product were occurred during the warranty period though the product was used for about one month which was though 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 product properly, which resulted to exist 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 alleged product with proper care, then the defects 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 dealers and service center as they have set up service center only to provide better service to their genuine customers.  By not taking steps for providing better service, the O.P. No.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 corrupt practice of providing improper service, which is not permissible in the eye of law.

8. Hence considering the above discussions, we feel, the complainant deserves to be compensated with adequate compensation and costs for his sufferings for 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.2 being the manufacturer of the alleged product is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged B.M. water purifier i.e. Rs. 39,000/- to the complainant and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the costs of product shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of sale i.e. 17.11.207 till payment.  Further the complainant is directed to hand over the alleged water purifier to the O.P.No.2 at the time of complying the order by them.

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 26^th day of July, 2021.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.