1. Brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that on 01.09.2017 he purchased one lava mobile A-97 GB+ bearing IMEI No. 911573100383680 / 911573100803667 from O.P. No. 1  for consideration of Rs. 7,000/- vide invoice no. 389 dated 01.09.2017 after getting an assurance of good quality and guarantee of one year.  It is alleged that after 3 months of its use, the said handset exhibited various defects like gruff sound, automatic switch off, over heating on body part and totally disorder in swiping and not functioning / one side hearing, as such on 12.12.2017 he contacted with the O.P. No. 1, who after inspecting suggested as it is manufacture defect.  Further it is alleged that the O.P.No.1 though kept the said mobile for about 1 month but the defects could not rectified  and on many occasions, the O.P. No. 1 & 2 kept the mobile with him for its repair but did give any result.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps, Complainant filed this present case claiming refund the costs of the alleged mobile and Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation expenses.
    
2. The O.P. No. 1 appeared and filed his written version admitting the sale of alleged handset to the Complainant but denied the other allegations contending that as per approach of Complainant, considering the good customer relationship he repaired the alleged handset through the O.P. No. 2 and returned the handset to the Complainant.  Further he contended that the Complainant has to contact with the service center for any further defects to the O.P. No. 2, if occurred within warranty period and showing his no liability, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.
    
3. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 2 & 3 though have received the notice which was sent through Regd. Post vide R.L. No. RO539148920IN and RO539148880IN both dated 01.05.2018, did not choose to appear in this case, nor they filed the counter version nor participated in the hearing also, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them and keeping in view of natural justice, they have been provided with several opportunities to submit their views, but they did not choose to avail the same. 
    
4. Except complainant no other parties to the present disputes, have filed any documents.  Heard from the Complainant at length and perused the materials available on record.
    
5. In this case, it is an evidentiary fact that the Complainant had purchased one lava mobile A-97 GB+ bearing IMEI No. 911573100383680 / 911573100803667 from O.P. No. 1  for consideration of Rs. 7,000/- vide invoice no. 389 dated 01.09.2017 after getting an assurance of good quality and guarantee of one year and the said handset is a product of O.P.No. 3.  From the submissions of Complainant and the versions submitted in the counter filed by the O.P.No.1, it is also well proved that the after using for some days, the alleged handset started defects like gruff sound, automatic switch off, over heating on body part and totally disorder in swiping and not functioning / one side hearing, as such on 12.12.2017 he contacted with the O.P. No.1.  Further it is evidentiary fact that the O.P.No.1 though kept the said mobile for about 1 month but the defects could not rectified and on many occasions, the O.P. No. 1  kept the mobile with him for its repair but did give any result, as such the O.P. No. 1 suggested it as manufacture defect and the said version of Complainant has never been challenged by the O.P. No. 1 and became unrebuttal from the side of the O.P. No.1 and remained unchallenged from the side O.P. No. 2 & 3 and all the incident occurred during the warranty period.
    
6. Further at the time of hearing, it is also averred by the Complainant that due to unfair trade practice followed by the O.Ps, he could not get the utility of the alleged mobile handset and the handset till date lying with the O.P. No. 1.  We have perused the materials available on records.  It is ascertained that the O.P. No. 1 though have filed his counter stating that he has repaired the alleged mobile handset but miserably failed to produce any documentary evidences to that effect, hence the versions of O.P.No.1 is not believable at this stage.   And since the O.P.No.2 & 3 did not appear in this case, we lost opportunities to ascertain the exact defects of the alleged mobile handset.  Therefore, the unchallenged averments of the complainant was taken into consideration.  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 Commission has held that –“Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted”.  
    
7. However, from the foregoing paras, we feel that the mobile handset purchased by the Complainant was having some defects since the day of purchase, which occurred using after some days i.e. about 3 months.  In this long gap, due non action of the O.Ps, definitely the handset became defunct which is of no use, hence the repair of whole set is quite impossible.  Further, though the O.P. No. 2 & 3 received the notice but did not choose to appear in the case, as such we feel, the Complainant did not get any proper service from the O.P.No.2 & 3 for which he must have suffered mental agony, hence he must be deserve some compensation and cost.
    
8. In the above facts and circumstances, it can be concluded that the alleged handset suffers from the defects which cannot be rectified for which the OP No. 3 being the manufacturer of the alleged mobile handset, is solely liable to compensate the Complainant, further for the non co-operation attitude of O.Ps, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and physical harassment and filed this case incurring some expenditures, for which he is entitled for some compensation and costs also.  Considering his suffering we feel a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and costs will meet the ends of justice. 

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 cost of the alleged handset of Rs. 7,000/- and to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of litigation to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of the communication of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry 10% interest from the date of this order.

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 9^th day of October, 2018.

        Issue free copies to the parties concerned.