1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 08.09.2019 he purchased one Redmi Mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. Realme C1 and Sr. No. 18CC3449 having IMEI No. 864812049313292 and paid Rs. 7,800/- vide invoice no. 9011 dated 08.09.2019 with warranty certificate.  It is alleged that after three month of its use, the said mobile handset showed defects like battery backup problem / instant hanging / overheat performance in its body part and did not function properly, for which he deposited the alleged handset with the O.P.No.1, who after 15 days returned the handset being repaired.It is further alleged that using the said mobile handset, he found the previous defects and on contact with the O.P. No. 1 who suggested to contact with O.P. No. 2.Since no response received from the O.P. No. 2, he again contacted with the O.P. No. 1 and was suggested to come after one month as the same is to be sent to O.P. No. 2 and in the month February, 2020, he received the mobile handset from the O.P. No. 1 but found the earlier problem.Thus alleging 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 mobile handset and Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation.

2. The O.P. No. 1 though received the notice, did not choose to appear in this case, nor he filed the counter version nor also participated in the hearing, inspite of several opportunities given to him for his submissions, keeping in view of natural justice, hence, we lost every opportunities to hear from him.

3. The O.P. No. 2 though received the notice from this Commission which was sent through Regd. Post vide R.L. No. RO961907805IN dated 12.06.2020, but did not choose to appear in this case nor filed / send their counter version nor also participated in the hearing, inspite of several opportunities given to them for their submissions keeping in view of natural justice, hence, we lost every opportunities to hear from them.
    
4. Except complainant no other parties to the present dispute, have filed any documents.  During the time of hearing, we heard only from the complainant.  Perused the record and materials documents available in the record.   Since the allegations made against the O.Ps are remained unchallenged and unrebuttal, as such we decided to proceed on merit.

5. In the instant case, it is an evidentiary fact that on 08.09.2019 complainant purchased the alleged Redmi Mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. Realme C1 and Sr. No. 18CC3449 having IMEI No. 864812049313292 and paid Rs. 7,800/- vide invoice no. 9011 dated 08.09.2019 with warranty certificate.  There is also no dispute that using three month, the said mobile handset showed defects like battery backup problem / instant hanging / overheat performance in its body part and did not function properly, for which the complainant on many occasions handed over the alleged mobile handset to the O.P. No. 1.  Though the same may be repaired by the O.P. No. 1 either through any authorized technician or any local technician, but the defects reiterates everytime, for which complainant could not get the benefits out of the alleged mobile for which he purchased.   Since no contradiction made out by any of the O.Ps, the allegation remained unchallenged and we think, the O.Ps have no objection to the allegations made against them.  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 Hon’ble National Commission has held that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”   
    
6. Further, the defects were occurred during the warranty period though the mobile handset was used only for three months, which was repaired by the O.P. No. 1, but the same defects were persisted repeatedly, as such the complainant prayed for the cost of the mobile from the O.Ps.  We feel, the O.P. No. 1 migh have repaired the alleged mobile handset through any local technicians, for which the alleged mobile handset reiterated its previous 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. Further, we feel, had the O.P. No.1 rectified the alleged defects occurred in the mobile handset through one authorized service center set up by the O.P.No.2, then the defects of the mobile handset could have easily and properly rectified, so that the complainant would not have suffered.  Further it was the duty of O.P.No.1 on the day when he received the alleged mobile handset from the complainant, immediately he was supposed to intimate the O.P.No.2 for providing better service to their genuine customer.  Further it is seen that the customers who purchase the mobile handset of O.P. No. 2 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 selling the products and carry out the defects as per his own choice with the assistance of local unauthorized technicians, which is not permissible as per law. 

8. Hence considering the above discussions, we feel, the complainant deserves to be compensated with compensation and costs for not providing better service by the O.Ps to 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. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation will meet the ends 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 mobile handset i.e. Rs. 7,800/- to the complainant alongwith Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the cost of mobile shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 08.09.2019 till payment.

        Pronounced in the open Court on this the 22^nd day of July, 2021.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.