1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he purchased one XIOMI Red MI 4164/Black mobile handset bearing model no. 9178029244, IMEI No. 86675003572594725954 from the O.P. No. 1 vide retail invoice no. 104 dated 01.10.2017 for consideration of Rs. 13,500/- alongwith warranty certificate and after using the said mobile for about 4 to 5 months, the said mobile showed several defects like touch screen / instant hanging/ overheat performance in its body part and did not function properly, for which he consulted with the O.P. No. 1, who collected the said mobile and sent to the O.P. No. 2 for proper inspection and 15 days after he returned the same after replacing the motherboard stating as defective one.  After using the same for about 3 months, the said mobile again exhibited hanging problems and application are not working properly, for which he again contacted with the O.P. No. 1, who sent the same to the O.P. No. 2 and after repair, the O.P. No. 2 charged Rs. 3066.82.  It is alleged that the mobile handset was under warranty whereas the O.Ps. have taken service charges from him, thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of O.Ps., he filed this present case before this Forum with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of the mobile and claimed Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses to him.

2. The O.P. No. 1 appeared in this case and filed his counter in oriya version admitting the sale of alleged mobile handset to the complainant, have denied the allegations of complainant contending that the complainant never contacted him for any defects of the alleged mobile and without his knowledge and fault, the complainant has filed this case against him.Further it is contended that he is a nominal retailer and he does not have any fault, as such denying his liability, he prayed to dismiss the case.

3. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 2 & 3 inspite of valid notice served upon them through Regd. Post vide R.L. No. RO954442292IN and RO954442332IN both dated 24.07.2018 respectively, they did not choose to appear in this case, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them and the allegations made against them remained unchallenged and became rebuttal.

4. Except complainant no other parties to the present disputes, have filed any documents.  Heard from the Complainant and O.P. No. 1 at length and perused the materials available on record.

5. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the alleged XIOMI Red MI 4164/Black mobile handset bearing model no. 9178029244, IMEI No. 86675003572594725954 from the O.P. No. 1 vide retail invoice no. 104 dated 01.10.2017 for consideration of Rs. 13,500/- alongwith warranty certificate and the said handset is a product of O.P.No.3.  Complainant has filed document to that effect.  The allegations of Complainant is that after 4 to 5 months of its use, the said mobile handset exhibited several defects like touch screen / instant hanging/ overheat performance in its body part and did not function properly, for which he consulted with the O.P. No. 1, who collected the said mobile and sent to the O.P. No. 2 for proper inspection and returned the same after 15 days after replacing the motherboard stating as defective one.  The further allegations of complainant is that after using the same for about 3 months, the said mobile again exhibited hanging problems and application are not working properly, for which he again contacted with the O.P. No. 1, who sent the same to the O.P. No. 2 and after repair, the O.P. No. 2 charged Rs. 3066.82.Complainant also filed document to that effect.Whereas the absence of the O.P. No. 2 & 3 in the instant case, the allegations of complainant became strong and vital from all angle.In this context, we have verified the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission, in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another, wherein Hon’ble Commission has held that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”

6. During hearing, the allegations of Complainant were well established, and the same are remained unchallenged as the said allegations have not been rebutted by the Opp. Parties in disputes i.e. O.P.No. 2 & 3.  It is also well proved that after repair work carried out by the O.P.No.1 for several times, the alleged handset exhibited the same problems as it was having earlier and all the incident have taken place during the warranty period. Further, since the O.P.No. 2 did not appear in this case, we lost every opportunity to ascertain the actual defects of the alleged mobile handset. 

7. However, from the foregoing paras, we feel that the alleged mobile handset was having some defects since the day after using the said mobile handset for about 4 to 5 months as the motherboard of the alleged mobile handset was replaced having defects in it and in this long gap, due to non provide of better service by the O.Ps, definitely the handset became defunct and lying dead, which is of no use, hence the repair of whole set is quite impossible.  Further we feel, refund of cost of alleged mobile handset is the only solutions, which will meet the ends of justice.

8. In the above facts and circumstances, it can be concluded in the case in hand that the alleged handset suffers from the defects which cannot be rectified at this moment for which the OP No. 3 being the manufacturer of the alleged mobile handset is only liable to compensate the Complainant.  Hence this order.

ORDER

That the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.3 being the manufacturer of the alleged mobile handset is herewith directed to refund the costs of alleged mobile handset i.e. of Rs. 13,500/- and to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation for harassment caused due to non provider of better service and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation within 30 days from the date of the communication of this order, failing which the cost of mobile shall carry 10% interest from the date of this order till payment.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 11^th day of March, 2019.

Issue free copies to the parties concerned.