1. Brief fact of the case of complainant is that he purchased one Micro Max Mobile from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. M-D200 M having IMEI No. 911425256305134 and paid Rs. 3,100/- vide invoice no. 759 dated 14.08.2015 alongwith warranty certificate and after two month, the said mobile showed several defects like automatic switch off for which he consulted with the O.P.No. 1 for its repair, who sent the said mobile to the O.P. No. 2, the authorized service center of O.P.No.3.  It is alleged that after 10 days, the O.P. No. 1 returned the said mobile with a job sheet vide no. E010217-0915-18920206 dated 01.09.2015 and after using the same for some days, the said mobile exhibited the previous defects alongwith some additional defects.  It is also alleged that on approach to the O.P.No.1 regarding the defects of the alleged mobile, who disclosed that the mobile is having inherent manufacturing defects.  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 mobile with interest 18% p.a. and Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation expenses to him.
    
2. The O.P. No. 1 appeared in this case and filed his counter version admitting the sale of alleged mobile handset to the complainant but denied the allegations contending that he is only a retail dealer and his duty is to report immediately to the O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No. 3, and he is not liable for any manufacturing defect of any mobile and with other contentions, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.
    
3. On the other hand, the O.P.No.2 & 3 though received the notice from the Fora, 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 so also the allegations of complainant remained unchallenged and became unrebuttal from the side of O.P. No. 2 & 3.
    
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 job sheet issued by the O.P. No. 2.  Heard from the Complainant as well as from the O.P.No.1.  Perused the case records and material documents available in the record.
    
5. It is an admitted fact that the alleged mobile handset was purchased by the complainant from the O.P.No.1 bearing model no. M-D200 M bearing IMEI No. 911425256305134 and paid Rs. 3,100/- vide invoice no. 759 dated 14.08.2015 alongwith warranty certificate and after using two months, the said mobile showed several defects like automatic switch off for which he consulted with the O.P.No. 1 for its repair and after receipt the said mobile from the complainant, O.P.No.1 sent the said mobile to the O.P. No. 2 who is the authorized service center of O.P.No.3.  It is alleged that after 10 days, the O.P. No. 1 returned the said mobile with job sheet vide no. E010217-0915-18920206 dated 01.09.2015 and after using the same for some days, the said mobile handset exhibited the previous defects alongwith some additional defects and on approach to the O.P. No.1 who disclosed that the mobile handset is having inherent manufacturing defects and the alleged mobile handset is with the O.P. No. 1.  On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1 admitted the fact that he has sold the alleged mobile handset to the complainant and as per the complaint, he sent the mobile handset to the service center of the O.P.No.2 and also handed over the job sheet to complainant and the alleged mobile handset is with him after complainant deposited the same with him for the second time.  From the job sheet filed by the complainant, it is clearly evident that the alleged mobile handset showed the defects within fortnight.  Though the O.P. No. 2 & 3 received the notice of the Fora, but did not choose to appear in this case, as such we have no hesitation to disbelieve the versions of the complainant and the allegations made by the complainant became unrebuttal from the side of the O.Ps No. 2 & 3.  In this connections, 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, at the time of hearing, the O.P.No.2 & 3 are absent on repeated calls, for which we lost opportunities to come to know that whether the submissions of the O.P.No.1 contains any truth or not, as such the contentions of the O.P. No. 1 was taken into consideration regarding the fact that the defects were noticed by him and he has sent the alleged mobile handset to the O.P.No.2 for its repair.  However, the O.P.No.1 has admitted that the alleged mobile handset in dispute was manufactured by O.P.No.3 which was sold by O.P. No. 1 to the complainant.  The allegations of the complainant regarding the fact that after some days of its repair, it showed the previous defects alongwith some additional defects, was well corroborated by him at the time of hearing.  There was no any persons from the side of O.P. No. 2 & 3 to challenge the versions of the complainant nor any contradiction was brought out, therefore, the allegations of complainant is well established, so also the absence of the O.P.No. 2 & 3 makes the averments of complainant strong and vital.
    
7. Further, the defects were occurred during the warranty period though the mobile handset was used for only for few days, which was repaired by the O.P. No. 2, but the same defects were persisted alongwith some additional defects even after of its repair was made by O.P. No.2, as such the complainant prayed for the cost of the mobile from the O.Ps.  We feel, the O.P. No. 2 has not repaired the alleged mobile properly, for which the alleged mobile handset reiterated its previous defects alongwith some additional defects and in our view, such type of practice adopted by the O.P. No. 2 is clearly case of principle of deficiency in service. 
    
8. We feel, had the O.P. No.2 rectified the alleged defects occurred in the mobile handset with proper care and attention, then the defects of the mobile handset 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.3 to check out the day to day activities of their authorized service center as they have set up service center only to provide better service to their genuine customers. By not taking proper steps for providing better service, the O.P. No. 2 & 3 have established their inefficiency in providing service.  Further it is seen that in the present locality, though no authorized service center is set up there, as such the customers who purchases the products of the O.P.No.3 from the O.P. No. 1 must have depended on the O.P.No.1 to avail proper service.  But without providing better service with proper care and attention, as per the norms of the company, the O.P.No. 2 indulged himself in corrupt practice of providing improper service, which is not permissible in the eye of law.
    
9. Further lying the said mobile handset for about 3 years without any use, in our view, is of no use.
    
10. 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. 2,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 500/- 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.3 being the manufacturer of the alleged product is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged mobile handset i.e. Rs. 3,100/- to the complainant and also to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 500/- towards costs of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the costs of mobile handset shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till payment.  Further the O.P. No. 3 is at liberty to collect the alleged mobile handset from the O.P. No. 1.

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 1^st day of November, 2018.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.