1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that on 28.02.2017 he purchased one Vivo mobile phone from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. 1611 and IMEI No. 863855030554698 vide invoice no. 21 dated 28.02.2017 for consideration of Rs. 28,000/-.  It is alleged that after 2 months of its purchase, the alleged mobile handset did not function properly and after six months it became totally defunct, for which he approached the O.P. No. 1 to repair, but on reply, the O.P. No. 1 paid no heed to the his request rather advised him to approach the O.P. No. 3 and he returned with much mental agony, thus with other contentions, alleging the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to deliver him a same model defectless new Vivo mobile phone with fresh warranty certificate or to refund the cost of the mobile handset of Rs. 28,000/- with 18 % interest and to pay Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to her.
    
2. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1 after receiving the notice of this Fora, appeared in this case and filed his counter admitting the sale of the alleged mobile handset to the complainant but denied the allegations of the complainant contending that the complainant has never visited to his shop for lodging any complaints in respect of the alleged mobile, thus denying his liabilities, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.
    
3. It is noticed that the notice sent to the O.P. No. 3 has returned back with a postal remark as “refused”, as such the service of notice sent to the O.P.No.3 held sufficient as per Order 5 Rule 15 of the C.P.C.
    
4. Further it is noticed that the O.P. No. 2 & 3, appeared through their Ld. Counsel but did not choose to file their counter versions to make any contradiction to the allegations of the complainant, inspite of repeated opportunities given to them keeping in view of natural justice, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them and the allegations of complainant remained unchallenged and became unrebuttal from their side.
    
5. Except complainant no other parties to the present dispute, have filed any documents.  Heard from the complainant as well as from the O.P.No. 1.  Rest Opp. Parties are absent at the time of hearing, as such the document filed by the complainant remained unchallenged.  Perused the record and material documents available therein. 
    
6. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding purchase of the alleged mobile handset by the complainant from the O.P.No.1 bearing bearing model no. 1611 and IMEI No. 863855030554698 vide invoice no. 21 dated 28.02.2017 for consideration of Rs. 28,000/- alongwith warranty certificate and complainant has filed document to that effect.  The allegations of complainant is that after 2 months of its purchase, the alleged mobile handset did not function properly and after six months it became totally defunct, for which he approached the O.P. No. 1 to repair, but on reply, the O.P. No. 1 paid no heed to the his request rather advised him to approach the O.P. No. 3 and he returned with much mental agony, though the versions of complainant is challenged by the O.P. No. 1 but to make it contrary, the O.P. No. 1 did not produce any cogent evident to that effect i.e. complaint registered being maintained for such period.  Therefore, the plea of O.P. No. 1 cannot be accepted at this moment.  Since the O.P. No. 2 & 3 did not file any counter versions to make any contradiction, we lost opportunities to hear from them so also to come to a conclusion that whether the alleged mobile handset was having any manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant.Though the O.P. No. 1 filed his counter challenging the versions of complainant, but did not produce any cogent evident regarding to the effect that the complainant has never visited to his shop for any complaint, Further absence of O.P.No. 2 & 3 made it clear that they have nothing to say in this regard.
    
7. Further it is seen that in the present locality, since there is no authorized service centre of the O.P. No. 2 & 3, as such the customers who purchase the product of the O.P. No. 2 & 3 from the O.P. No. 1, must have depended on the service of the O.P. No. 1, and it is the bounden duty of the O.P. No. 1 to provide better service to their genuine customers like the complainant.  Though the O.P.No.2 & 3 have received the notice from the Fora but did not choose to participate in the hearing to make any contradiction, 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.
    
8. Further at the time of hearing, it is also averred by the complainant that due to unfair trade practice followed by the O.P. No.1 he could not get the utility of the alleged mobile handset and the handset is lying dead.  From the record, it is ascertained that the O.P. No.1 though have filed his counter stating that the complainant has never come to his shop but miserably failed to produce any cogent evidence to that effect,    hence the versions of O.P.No.1 is not believable at this stage. 
    
9. Further, the defects were occurred during the warranty period though the mobile handset was used only for 2 months, which was supposed to be repaired by the O.P. No. 1 through the authorized service center of O.P. No. 2 & 3 and whereas without providing his best service, the O.P.No.1 only suggested the complainant to lodge claim with the O.P. No. 3, which is not permissible in the eye of law.  As, it is the first and foremost duty of the O.P. No. 1 to provide his best services to his genuine customer i.e. complainant as the O.P. No. 2 & 3 having no authorized service center in the present locality, and had the O.P. No.1 provided the service in proper manner towards repair of the alleged mobile handset than the defects in the mobile handset could have easily rectified and the complainant would not have suffered and in our view, such type of practice adopted by the O.P. No. 1 is clearly established the principle of deficiency in service.
    
10. Further it was the duty of O.P.No.1 that on the day when he received the alleged mobile handset from the complainant, immediately he was supposed to intimate the O.P.No. 2 & 3 for providing better service to their genuine customer.  But without providing better service to his customer, the O.P.No.1 left the complainant in a mid-way where the complainant would not get any source to sort out the problems, which is also not permissible as per law.  Further since there is no authorized service center in the present locality, it is the prime duty of the O.Ps. No. 2 & 3 to check over such matter and day to day activity of the upgradration of their service strategy in the market, but without doing so, the O.P. No. 2 & 3 kept silent over the matter, which attract the principle of unfair trade practice.  Further lying the said mobile handset for a period about 2 year without any use, in our view, is of no use.
     
11. Hence considering the above discussions, we feel, the complainant deserves to be compensated with adequate compensation and costs for not providing better and proper 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. 5,000/- 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 & 3 being the marketer and manufacturer of the alleged product are herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged mobile handset i.e. Rs. 28,000/- to the complainant and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the cost of mobile handset shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till payment. 

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 1^st day of February, 2019.      

         Issue free copy to the parties concerned.