1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 15.09.2015 he purchased a Lava Mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. Xolo-Black, IMEI No. 1-911451001256737 & IMEI 2-911451001356735 and paid Rs. 13,300/- vide invoice no. nil dated 15.09.2015 alongwith warranty certificate.  It is alleged that soon after after it’s purchase in the month of December, 2015 the said mobile handset showed several defects, for which the complainant approached the O.P.No.1, who on each approach received the mobile for repair from O.P.No.2 and after some days returned the same after its repair but after a day or two, the handset again showed its previous defects and he expressed that the alleged mobile is having inherent manufacturing defect, and the approach made to the O.P.No.3 in this regard did not give any result, thus alleging the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, complainant filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of the mobile handset and to pay Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.
    
2. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1 appeared in this case, filed his counter admitting about the selling of the alleged mobile handset to the complainant as well as the repair made by him through the O.P.No.2, but denied the other allegations to the effect that after repair of the alleged mobile the complainant has never visited to his shop for further complaint, thus denying his liability he prayed to dismiss the case against him.
    
3. The O.P. No. 2 & 3, though received the notice from this Fora, did not choose to appear in this case, nor filed their counter nor participated in the hearing in spite of several adjournments given to them  keeping in view of natural justice, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them. 
    
4. Except Complainant no other parties to the present disputes, have filed any documents.  Heard from the Complainant as well as from the O.P.No.1.  Rest O.Ps are absent on calls.  Perused the case record and material documents available therein.
    
5. 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 model no. Xolo-Black, IMEI No. 1- 911451001256737 & IMEI 2-911451001356735 and paid Rs. 13,300/- vide invoice no. nil dated 15.09.2015 alongwith warranty certificate and the Complainant has filed document to that effect.It is also submitted by the Complainant that in the month of December, 2015 the alleged mobile handset showed several defects, for which he approached the O.P.No.1 who on each approach received the alleged mobile for repair from O.P.No.2 and after some days, returned the said mobile after its due repair but within a day or two, the handset again showed its previous defects.Since the O.P. No.2 & 3 did not appear throughout the proceeding, we lost opportunities to hear from them so also to come to a conclusion that whether the alleged mobile handset was properly serviced / repaired through the authorized service center i.e. O.P.No. 2 ?Though the O.P.No.1 challenged the fact that the complainant has never visited to his shop for further claim, but did not adduce any cogent evidence.As such the averments made by the Complainant became unrebuttal from the side of the O.Ps.Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another has also hold 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.  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 to the Complainant.  The allegations of the Complainant regarding the fact that after some days of its repair, it showed the previous defects, was well corroborated by him at the time of hearing.  Though the O.P.No.1 have challenged the same but to make it contrary, he did not choose to file any evidence to that effect, therefore, the allegations of Complainant is wellestablished, 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 a few month i.e. to say 3 months, which was repaired by the O.P. No. 1 through the O.P.No.2, but the same defects were persisted even after of its repair was made by O.P. No.1, as such the Complainant prayed for refund of the cost of the mobile from the O.Ps.  We feel, the alleged mobile handset must have repaired by the O.P. No. 1 through the local technicians as per his own choice but not by any authorized technicians of O.P.No.3, 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 establishes the principle of deficiency in service. 
    
8. 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.3 i.e. 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 & 3 for providing better service to their genuine customer.  Further it is seen that in the present locality, though there is an authorized service center set up newly, but is unable to provide better service to the customers, as such the customers who purchases the product 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, 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 by the help of unauthorized technicians, which is not permissible in the eye of law.
    
9. Further lying the said mobile handset for a long period without any repair and 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. 1,000/- 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.1, being the retailer of the O.P. No. 3 is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged mobile handset i.e. Rs. 13,300/- to the complainant and also herewith directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- for costs of litigation to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the cost of mobile shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. till payment.  Further the O.P. No. 1 is at liberty to recover the amount paid by him to the complainant as per this order, from the manufacturer i.e. O.P. No. 3 as per rules.

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 8^th day of June, 2018.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.