1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 25.08.2018 he purchased one Samsung Mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. Galaxy J2 2018, IMEI No. 357977093764502 and 357978/09/376450/0 and paid Rs. 7,700/- vide invoice no. 34552 dated 25.08.2018 alongwith warranty certificate.  It is alleged that after 2 to 3 months of its use the said mobile handset showed some defects i.e. black spot on screen which automatically spread all over the screen and did not display properly for which he contacted the Op.No.1, who after keeping the said mobile for about 15 days returned the handset saying that the mobile was repaired, but after using for about one month, the said mobile showed the previous defects alongwith additional defect like display problem and improper function of touch screen. It is also alleged that after finding the defects the Op.No.1 send the Mobile to the Op.No.2 for its repair, but since the complainant did not get any fruitful result he filed this case with prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of Mobile and to pay Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.
    
2. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1 after receiving the notice of this Fora did not choose to appear in this case nor filed his counter nor participated in the hearing also, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from him.
    
3. The O.P. No. 2 is represented through their Ld. Counsel, who appeared in this case, filed their counter in shape of written version admitting the purchase of alleged mobile handset by the Complainant but denied all other facts contending that they have “Principal to Principal” relation with their channel partners and  also contended that the Complainant has not produced any expert opinion report to prove his allegation and also the defects in the said mobile are not in their knowledge, so also neither the Complainant nor the O.P.No.1 have intimated them regarding any defect, as such showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
4. Complainant has filed the retail invoice vide no. POS 34552 dated 25.08.2018 and no other parties to the present disputes have filed any documents.
    
5. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the alleged Samsung Mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. Galaxy J2 2018, IMEI No. 357977093764502 and 357978/09/376450/0 and paid Rs. 7,700/- vide invoice no. 34552 dated 25.08.2018 alongwith warranty certificate and the Complainant has filed document to that effect.  It is alleged that after 2 to 3 months of its use the said mobile handset showed some defects i.e. black spot on screen which automatically spread all over the screen and did not display properly for which he contacted the O.P.No.1, who after keeping the said mobile for about 15 days returned the handset saying that the mobile was repaired, but after using for about one month, the said mobile showed the previous defects alongwith additional defect like display problem and improper function of touch screen.  Since the O.P. No. 1 is  absent throughout the proceeding, as such we lost every opportunities to come to know whether the alleged mobile handset was deposited with the O.P.No.2 and also properly repaired by the O.P.No.2? As such there is no question of disbelieve the versions of the Complainant.  Though the O.P. No. 2 has challenged  the same stating that the defects occurred in the mobile handset are not in their knowledge, but did not adduce cogent evidence nor obtained any evidence from their channel partner i.e. O.P.No.1, as such the averments made by the Complainant became unrebuttal from the side of the O.Ps.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 that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.” 
    
6. Further, at the time of hearing, the O.P.No.1 is absent on repeated calls, for which we lost opportunities to come to know that whether the submissions of the O.P.No.2 contains any truth or not, as such the contentions of the O.P. No. 2 was taken into consideration regarding the fact that the defects were not in their knowledge.  However, the O.P.No.2 has admitted that the alleged mobile handset in dispute was manufactured by them which was sold by O.P. No. 1 to the Complainant.  The allegations of the Complainant regarding the fact that after 2 to 3 months of purchase, it showed the several defects, was well corroborated by him at the time of hearing.  Though the O.P.No.2 have challenged the same under the provision of Section 13(1) of the Act but to make it contrary, they did not choose to file any evidence to that effect, therefore, the allegations of Complainant is well  established, so also the absence of O.P. No.1 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 2 to 3 months, which was repaired by the O.P. No. 1, but the same defects were persisted even after of its repair was made, as such the Complainant prayed for 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 but not by O.P.No.2 or by their authorized service center, for which the alleged mobile handset reiterated its previous defects alongwith additional defects and in our view, such type of practice adopted by the O.P. No. 1 is clearly established the principle of deficiency in service.Though the submissions of Complainant was challenged by the O.P.No.2 contending that replacement or refund of cost cannot be made without any expert opinion report made to that effect, but have overlooked the day to day activity of their channel partner, rather the O.P.No.2 intended to strictly push the burden of proof on the Complainant but miserably failed to make any contradiction to the effect that of existence of any defects.
    
8. We feel, had the O.P. No.1 rectified the alleged defects occurred in the mobile handset through the O.P. No.2 or any of their authorized service center, 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 for providing better service to his genuine customer.  Further it is seen that in the present locality, though there is no any authorized service center, as such the customers who purchase the products of the O.P.No.2 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 not providing better service by the O.Ps to their valuable customer like the Complainant, as the Complainant must have suffered some mental agony, financial loss 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. 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.2 being the manufacturer of the alleged product is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged mobile handset i.e. Rs. 7,700/- to the Complainant alongwith Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of litigation to the Complainant.  All the above order is to be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the cost of mobile handset shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order.  Further the Complainant is directed to hand over the alleged mobile handset to the O.P.No.2 at the time of complying the order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 19^th day of November, 2019.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.