1. The fact of case of complainant is that on 18.01.2017, he purchased one Panasonic Mobile bearing IMEI No. 351598082333616 from O.P.No.1 vide bill no. 947 dt. 18.01.2017 for Rs. 9,490/- with one year warranty with an assurance to avail best service from the O.Ps.  It is alleged that after using the mobile handset for about 9 months i.e. on 10.07.2017, he found some sort of generic defectives in the mobile like automatically switched off and display problem and became defunct and as per advise of O.P.No.1, he contacted with the O.P.No.2 who after observation, stating it as manufacture defect and replaced the said mobile with a new one.  Further it is alleged that on 03.11.2017, the new mobile exhibited the same defects as it was earlier found in the old mobile and in this regard, he contacted with both O.P.No.1 and 2, but the O.P.No.2 strictly refused to handle the mobile, for which, on 13.11.2017 he lodged a complaint to O.P.No.3 but did not get any response, thus alleging deficiency in service, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.P. to refund the cost of the alleged defective mobile of Rs. 9,490/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. and to pay Rs. 20,000/- and Rs 10,000/- towards costs  of litigation and Rs. 2000/- towards conveyance to him.

2. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1, though received the notice from this Fora, but did not choose to appear in this case, inspite of several opportunities were given to him keeping in view of natural justice, for filing of counter and his submissions, as such we lost opportunities to hear from him.
    
3. The notice which was sent to the O.P.No.2 for his appearance and filing of counter, was returned back as unserved with a postal remark “Refused” on dated 28.11.2017, as such as per our order no. 3 dated 18.12.2017 the O.P.No.2 set exparte and we held the service of notice as sufficient.  Non appearance of the O.P. No. 2, we lost every opportunity to hear from him, and makes the allegations of complainant strong and vital.

4. The O.P.No.3, though appeared in this case, but did not choose to file any authenticated counter, nor participated in the hearing inspite of several opportunities were given to them keeping in view of natural justice.  However, the O.P.No.3 sent their reply without any seal or signature or any authentication, through an unknown person, as such we rejected the said counter, being unauthenticated one.  And non appearance by the O.P. No. 3 throughout the proceeding, also makes the allegations of complainant strong and vital.
    
5. Complainant has filed documents like retail invoice vide no. 947 dated 18.01.2017 issued by O.P.No.1, service job sheet vide no. BHN/PS/17/00379 dated 07.10.2017 issued by O.P.No.2, 2 nos. of correspondences made with the O.P. No. 3 in support of his submissions.
    
6. Since no other parties, except the complainant, are present during the time of hearing, as such we heard from the complainant at length.  Perused the case records and material documents available therein.
    
7. In the instant case, it is an evidentiary fact that on 18.01.2017, the complainant had purchased one Panasonic Mobile bearing IMEI No. 351598082333616 from the O.P.No.1 vide bill no. 947 dt. 18.01.2017 for Rs. 9,490/- only with one year warranty.  Complainant filed document to that effect.  It is alleged that after using the mobile handset for about 9 months i.e. on 10.07.2017, he found some sort of generic defectives in the mobile like automatically switched off and display problem and became defunct and on approach to O.P.No.1, he was advised to contact with the O.P.No.2.  Complainant also filed document to that effect.  Further the allegation of complainant is that on 03.11.2017, the new mobile exhibited the same defects as it was earlier and while on contact to both O.P.No.1 and 2, the O.P.No.2 strictly refused to handle the mobile, for which, on 13.11.2017 he lodged complaint to O.P.No.3 but did not get any

• Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another wherein Hon’ble National Commission has hold that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”

8. Hence, considering the submissions of complainant and the material documents available in the case records, we feel, due to non provide of better service by the O.Ps, complainant must have suffered mental agony and physical harassment, for which he was compelled to seek his redress by incurring some expenses, as such in our view, he deserves to be some compensation.  Hence this order.

ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed on part.  The O.P. No. 3 being the manufacturer of the alleged mobile handset is herewith directed to refund the cost of the mobile hand i.e. Rs. 9,490/- to the complainant.  The O.P.No.3 is also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant for non providing better service by the O.P.No.2 and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant and all the directions should be complied within 30 days from the receipt of this order, failing which, the cost of mobile shall carry interest 10% per annum from this date of this order. 

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 15 day of July, 2018.

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.