1. Brief fact of the case of complainant is that he purchased one Samsung Mobile from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. J 7, Prime having IMEI No. 35897208527951902 / 35897308527951702 and paid Rs. 13,000/- vide invoice no. 3097 alongwith warranty certificate.It is alleged that two months after it’s use, the said mobile handset showed several defects like touch screen / battery problem / overheat performances and did not function properly, for which he deposited the alleged handset with the O.P.No.1, who after one month returned the said mobile handset by saying that the mobile was repaired, but after 10 to 15 days, the said mobile showed the previous defect alongwith some additional defects like low instant hanging problem. That on approach to O.P.No.1 regarding the existence of further defects, the O.P.No.1 kept the mobile for its repair and returned the mobile in the month of February, 2021, but after 10 days, the same defects exhibited again, for which, complainant could not get benefit out of it.Thus alleging 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 mobile handset and Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation.

2. The O.P. No. 1 though received the notice, did not choose to appear in this case, nor he filed the counter version nor also participated in the hearing, inspite of several opportunities given to him for his submissions, keeping in view of natural justice, hence, we lost every opportunities to hear from him.

3. The O.P. No. 2 though appeared in this case, but did not choose to file their counter version nor also participated in the hearing inspite of opportunities given to them, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them.
    
4. Except Complainant no other parties to the present disputes, have filed any documents.  During hearing, only complainant was present.  Heard from the Complainant only.  Perused the record and materials documents available in the record.

5. There is no dispute regarding purchase of the alleged mobile handset by the Complainant from the O.P.No.1  vide model no. J 7, Prime having IMEI No. 35897208527951902 / 35897308527951702 for consideration of Rs. 13,000/- vide invoice no. 3097 alongwith warranty certificate.  The allegations of complainant is that two months after it’s use, the said mobile handset showed several defects like touch screen /battery problem / overheat performances and did not function properly, for which he deposited the alleged handset with the O.P.No.1, who after one month returned the said mobile handset by saying that the mobile was repaired, but after 10 to 15 days, the said mobile showed the previous defect alongwith some additional defects like low instant hanging problem.  That on approach to O.P.No.1 regarding the existence of further defects, the O.P.No.1 kept the mobile for its repair and returned the mobile in the month of February, 2021, but after 10 days, the same defects exhibited again, for which, complainant could not get benefit out of it.  And all the O.Ps are remained silent over the allegations.

6. Further at the time of hearing, only the complainant is present and the submissions are well corroborated with his allegations.  Therefore, the allegations of Complainant is well established, so also the absence of the all the O.Ps make the averments of Complainant strong and vital.Since there is no dispute and contradict made out from the side of all the O.Ps, as such the allegation made against the O.Ps remained unchallenged and unrebuttal.In this connection, we have fortified with by the Judgement of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”

7. Further, it is ascertained that the defects were occurred during the warranty period though the mobile handset was used only for two months, which was repaired by the O.P. No. 1, but the same defects were persisted alongwith some additional defects even after of its repair work was carried out by O.P. No.1, 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 any authorized technicians of O.P.No.2, for which the alleged mobile handset reiterated its previous defects alongwith some 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.   

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.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 for providing better service to their genuine customer.Further it is seen that the customers who purchase the mobile handset of O.P. No. 2 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 defect as per his own choice with the assistance of local unauthorized technicians, which is not permissible as per law.

9. Hence considering the above discussions, we feel, the Complainant deserves to be compensated with compensation and costs for not providing better service by the O.Ps to 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. 5,000/- 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.2 being the manufacturer of the alleged product is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged mobile handset i.e. Rs. 13,000/- to the Complainant alongwith Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the cost of mobile shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of order till payment.  Further the O.P.No.2 is at liberty to recover the amount awarded for compensation and costs of litigation from the O.P. No. 1 for non providing better service to the Complainant.  Further the Complainant is directed to hand over the alleged mobile handset to the O.P.No.2 at the time of comply the order.

        Pronounced in the open Court on this the 26^th day of July, 2021.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.