1. The case of complainant is that on 22.01.2017 he Purchased an inverter having Exide battery in it, inside for consideration of Rs. 5,500/- from O.P.No.1 vide invoice no. 3291 dated 22.01.2017 with two years warranty coverage.  It is alleged that in the month of June, 2017 the battery of the inverter did not function properly and complainant did not get its utility, for which he lodged a complaint with the O.P.No.1, who after its inspection, suggested that the problem occurred due to water leakage and inner cable problem and advised the complainant to come after one month.  It is also alleged that in the month of July, 2017 while complainant contacted with the O.P.No.1, with one pretext or the other, replied that the inverter has not yet received from the O.P. No. 2.  Further it is alleged that after receipt the inverter from the O.P. No. 1 in the last week of July, 2017, he used the same for some months and thereafter, the inverter exhibited the previous defects and became dead.  Thus showing unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, complainant filed the present case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to  refund the cost of the alleged inverter and to pay Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs to him.
    
2. That the O.P. No. 1, though received the notice from the Fora, neither choose to appear in the case nor filed counter version nor also participate in the hearing, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from him.  Further non appearance of the O.P. No. 1 in the present proceedings, makes the allegations of complainant strong and vital and became unrebuttal from the side of the O.P. No. 1.
    
3. After receiving the notice, the O.P. No. 2 represented through their authorized representative who filed authorization letter alongwith their counter version admitting the sale of alleged inverter to the complainant through O.P.No.1, but specifically denied the allegations of the complainant contending that the allegations of  Complainant is only  regarding the Exide make battery existed inside the alleged inverter but not against the inverter and the Exide make battery is not their product, as such showing their no liability and with other contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
4. Complainant has filed certain documents in support of his allegations, whereas the O.P. No. 2 did not choose to file any documents except their counter.  Heard from the parties present at length and perused the case records and material documents available therein.
    
5. It is an admitted fact that the alleged inverter is a product of the O.P. No. 2 purchased by the complainant from the O.P. No. 1 for consideration of Rs. 5,500/- vide invoice no. 3291 dated 22.01.2017.  The allegations of complainant is that in the month of June, 2017 the battery of the inverter did not function properly, for which he lodged a complaint with the O.P.No.1, who after its inspection, suggested that the problem occurred due to water leakage and inner cable problem and the said allegations never been challenged by any of the O.Ps, though the O.P.No.2 was present during the hearing.  Further it is seen that the O.P.No.1 though received the notice of this Fora, did not choose to appear in this case, as such the allegations of complainant remained unchallenged on the side of O.P. No. 1 and have not rebutted at all and therefore we have no hesitation to disbelieve the version of complainant. In this connection we have fortified with the verdicts of 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. Further the contentions of the O.P. No. 2 is that since the allegations is made only against the defectiveness of the battery existed inside the alleged inverter and the said battery is not their product, as such they denied their liability in this case, but miserably failed to prove that who has installed the battery inside the inverter, it is either by O.P.No.1 or O.P. No.2?   No doubt, as per submissions of the O.P.  No. 2 that the Exide make battery is not their product, but it is not disputed that without battery, the alleged inverter can work properly.  Further the submissions of the complainant is that he handed over the alleged inverter to the O.P.No.1 for its repair, who inspected the inverter and after one month returned back the inverter to the complainant.  Further the O.P. No. 2 contended that the alleged defects in the inverter are not in their knowledge, as such we think, the O.P. No. 1 might have repaired the alleged inverter through the local mechanics but not by any authorized technicians of the O.P. No. 2, for which the previous defects reiterates in the alleged inverter.
    
7. We feel, had the O.P.No.1 rectified the defects in the alleged inverter 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.  Further it was the duty of O.P.No. 1 on the day when he received the alleged inverter handset from the complainant, immediately he was supposed to intimate the O.P.No.2 for providing better service to their genuine customer.  In the present case, since there is no authorized service center in the present locality at the time of occurrence, 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 in the present case in hand, the Op.No.1 did not extend his cooperation to the complainant, which is not permitted in the eye of law.
    
8. Further lying the said mobile handset for more than one years without any use, in our view, is of no use.
    
9. Further it is observed that complainant has not filed a single document to prove his allegations regarding his suffering and loss occurred due to the defects of the alleged inverter. Further without any cogent evidence and submission, it is not possible at present to ascertain the sufferings and lose of the complainant. As such we think the complainant does not deserve to entitle for compensation and costs.  However, considering the submissions of O.P. No. 2 and the allegations of the complainant, we think, the complainant is only entitled for replacement of the alleged inverter as it is under warranty.  Hence this order.

ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. No. 2 being manufacturer of the alleged inverter is herewith directed to replace the alleged inverter and the complainant is directed to handover the alleged inverter to the O.P.No.2 at the time when they replace the alleged inverter.  All the directions should be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

        Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order for compensations.  Parties to bear their own costs.

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 26^th day of October, 2018.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.