1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that on 06.12.2014 he purchased one Gionee mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. B Pioneer P3 vide invoice no. 7076 for consideration of Rs. 6,800/- alongwith warranty certificate.  It is alleged that five months after its use, the said mobile handset showed some defects in its functioning for which he reported the matter to the O.P.No.1 and as per his advise he deposited the said mobile handset with the O.P.No.2, who after 15 days returned the said mobile being repaired, but after returning to home, he found that the defects were properly not rectified and on contact to both O.P.No.1 & 2 they disclosed the mobile handset is having inherent manufacturing defects and suggested to contact with the rest O.Ps.  It is also alleged that he contacted the O.P.No.3, 4 & 5 but did not yield any result, thus showing 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 replace the alleged handset or to refund the cost of the mobile handset and to pay Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.
    
2. After receipt the notice, O.P. No. 1 appeared in this case and filed his counter versions admitting the sale of alleged mobile handset to the complainant have contended that he is only a retailer of the O.P. No. 3, 4 & 5 and his duty is to communicate defects of mobile to the above O.Ps., hence denying his liabilities, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.
    
3. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 2, 3, 4 & 5, though have 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 several opportunities given to them, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them, hence the allegations of complainant made against the O.P. No.2, 3, 4 & 5 remained unchallenged and became unrebuttal from their side. 
    
4. Complainant filed certain documents to prove his allegations, whereas the O.P.No.1 did not file any documents in his support.  At the time of hearing, though the O.P.No.1 appeared in this case, but did not participate in the hearing, as such, we heard from the complainant only and perused the documents available in the record.  
    
5. Since there is no any contradiction brought out by the O.Ps, as such the allegations of complainant remained unchallenged.  In this connection, we have fortified with the verdicts of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case between “Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another, wherein it is held that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”   
    
6. In this case, it is an evidentiary fact that the complainant had purchased one Gionee mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. B Pioneer P3 vide invoice no. 7076 dated 06.12.2014 for consideration of Rs. 6,800/- alongwith warranty certificate.  Complainant filed document to that effect.  The allegations of complainant is five months after its use, the said mobile handset showed some defects in its functioning for which he reported the matter to the O.P.No.1 and as per his advise he deposited the said mobile handset with the O.P.No.2, who after 15 days returned the said mobile with after being repaired, but after returning to home, he found that the defects were properly not rectified and on contact to both O.P.No.1 & 2 they disclosed the mobile handset is having inherent manufacturing defects.Whereas the O.P. No.1 have never utter a single word against the allegations of complainant, so also the absence of rest O.Ps makes the allegations of complainant strong and vital and since the rest O.Ps did not appear throughout the proceeding, we lost opportunities to come to a conclusion that whether the alleged mobile handset is having any defect or not.As such, the allegations made by the Complainant became unrebuttal from the side of all the O.Ps.
    
7. Further, at the time of hearing, except complainant, all the Opp. Parties are absent on repeated calls, for which we lost every opportunities to come to know that whether the submissions of the complainant contains any truth or not.  The counter versions filed by the O.P.No. 1 has clearly proved that the alleged mobile handset in dispute was manufactured by O.P.No.5 and marketed by the O.P. No. 3 & 4 which was sold to the Complainant through O.P. No. 1.  The allegations of the complainant regarding the fact that after five months of its use, it exhibited several defects, was well corroborated by him at the time of hearing.  No contestant O.Ps are there either to challenge the versions of complainant or to make it contradict.  As such the allegations of complainant became unrebuttal from the side of all the O.Ps.
    
8. Further, the defects were occurred during the warranty period though the mobile handset was used for 5 months only, 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, 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.5 i.e. O.P. No.2, 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. 
    
9. 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.5 i.e. O.P.No.2, then the defects of the mobile handset could have 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, 4 & 5 for providing better service to their genuine customer.  Further it is seen that in the present locality, since there is no authorized service center exist, as such the customers who purchases the product of the O.P.No. 5 from the O.P. No. 1 must have depended on him 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.
    
10. Further lying the said mobile handset for a long period without any repair and 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 service by the O.Ps No. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 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. 3,000/- 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.5, being the manufacturer of the alleged mobile handset is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged mobile handset i.e. Rs. 6,800/- to the complainant and also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- 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. 

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 6^th day of March, 2019.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.