1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 22.03.2017 he purchased one Samsung refrigerator vide RT No. 28K3022RJ/HL and S.N. No. 03HH4PAH600778R from O.P.No.1 and paid Rs. 25,500/- vide invoice no. 368 dated 22.03.2017 alongwith 10 years warranty coverage certificate.  It is alleged that 3 months after its use, the said product exhibited some sort of noise sound inside from the compressor which affected the cooling system, thus he contacted with the O.P. No.1, who on return suggested to come after 15 days so that the product will be send to O.P. No.2 for its repair.And after 15 days, O.P. No.1 returned the alleged product with a false belief that the compressor has been replaced under warranty.It is also alleged tha in the month of October, 2017, the said product reiterated the previous defect alongwith additional defect like water leakage and on contact with O.P. No.1 who kept the product for about 2 months, returned the same with an assurance of replacement of compressor for second time.It is also alleged that after two days of its use, the said product again exhibited its previous defects and on contact with the O.P. No.1 who replied that the compressor is having inherent manufacturing defects.Thus with other allegations, showing deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps, he filed this case claiming from the O.Ps to refund the costs of alleged product 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 send through post vide Rl No. RO025011653IN, did not choose to appear in this case, nor filed his counter version nor also participated in the hearing, 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 sale of alleged refrigerator to the Complainant but denied other facts contending that the alleged product is a well established product in the market over a period of years and all those products are put through stringent control system, quality checks by the quality department before  dispatch to the market.  Further they contended that the Complainant has not produced any expert opinion report to prove his allegation and also the defects in the said product 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. Parties have filed their respective documents in support of their submissions. Perused the case records and material documents available therein.  

5. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding sale of the alleged refrigerator by the Complainant from the O.P.No.1 vide RT No. 28K3022RJ/HL and S.N. No. 03HH4PAH600778R from O.P.No.1 and paid Rs. 25,500/- vide invoice no. 368 dated 22.03.2017 alongwith 10 years warranty coverage certificate.  The allegations of complainant, as per his submissions, the alleged products exhibited several defects from time to time, whereas the O.P. No. 1, after its repair the same for second time suggested that the compressor is having inherent manufacturing defects.  Whereas the A/R for O.P.No.2 argued that the complainant has not proved his allegations by producing documentary evidence to that effect, as such the allege product has no defective, as the alleged product is put through stringent control system, quality checks by the quality department before  dispatch to the market.
   
   Futher allegations of complainant is that while approached to O.P. No. 1 for replacement under warranty, who replied stating that the alleged refrigerator is having manufacturing defects.Since the O.P. No.1 did not appear throughout the proceeding, we lost opportunities to hear from him so also to come to a conclusion that whether the complainant approached him for repair and replacement of the alleged mobile?Though the O.P.No.2 challenged the same stating that the defects occurred in the said refrigerator are not in their knowledge, but did not adduce cogent evidence either from a expert opinion nor obtained any evidence from their channel partner i.e. O.P.No.1 and since the O.P. No.1 received the notice from this Commission, did not challenge the versions of complainant, 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.”
   
   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 refrigerator in dispute was manufactured by them which was sold to the complainant.The allegations of the complainant regarding the fact that after 3 months of its use, the said product started to exhibit problems was well corroborated by him at the time of hearing.Though the O.P.No.2 have challenged the same but to make it contrary, they did not file any evidence to that effect, therefore, the allegations of complainant is wellestablished, so also the absence of the O.P.No.1 makes the averments of complainant strong and vital.

6. Further at the time of hearing, complainant submitted that he used the alleged refrigerator for about 3 months and found defects thereafter, and several approaches did not yield any reliefs, as such the complainant prayed for the cost of the product from the O.Ps.  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, which seems that 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 non existence of any defects. 

7. We feel, had the O.P. No.1 entertained the complaint and rectified the alleged defects occurred in the alleged product 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 got complaint 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 always the customers who purchase any products and found any defects, immediately, they depend on the retailer for immediate relief and 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, which is not permissible in the eye of law.

8. Further lying the said refrigerator for a long period without any use, in our view, is of no use.

9. Hence considering the above discussions, we feel, the complainant deserves to be compensated with adequate compensation and costs for non providing better service by the O.Ps 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. 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 refrigerator i.e. Rs. 25,500/- and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- for costs of litigation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the cost of product shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till payment. 

          Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 22nd  day of August, 2022.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.