1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 29.07.2020 he purchased one RedMi K20 Pro Red (6+128) Black Red Gradient Mobile bearing IMEI No. 867482046653731 from O.P.No.1 and paid Rs. 25,000/- vide invoice no. 96 dated 29.07.2020 alongwith warranty certificate.It is alleged that 1 month after it’s use, the said mobile handset showed defects like touch screen, instant hanging and overheat performance in its body part and did not function properly, since there is no authorized service center in the locality, he deposited the alleged handset with the O.P.No.1, who after one month returned the said mobile handset after being repaired by O.P. No. 2 but after 15 days, the said mobile showed again the hanging problem.That on approach to O.P.No.1 regarding the existence of further defects, the O.P.No.1, who kept the mobile for about 15 to 20 days, returned the mobile after being repaired by O.P. No. 2, but complainant found the same defects alongwith additional defects like display problems, became lying unused. Thus with other allegations, 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 i.e. Rs. 25,000/- and to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.

2. The O.P. No. 1 & 2 though received the notice of this Commission, did not choose to appear in this case, neither both of them filed their counter / written version nor also participated in the hearing, inspite of several opportunities / adjournments have given to him for their submissions keeping in view of natural justice, as such, we lost every opportunities to hear from them.

3. On the other hand, though the O.P. No. 3 is appeared on 30.09.2021 but did not choose to file their counter / written version nor also participated in the hearing, inspite of several opportunities / adjournments have given to him for their submissions keeping in view of natural justice, as such, we lost every opportunities to hear from them.
    
4. Except complainant no other parties to the dispute have appeared in this case, whereas complainant filed evidence towards purchase of alleged product issued by O.P. No. 1 and also service job sheet issued by the O.P. No. 2, in support of his allegations.  Heard from the complainant at length.  Perused the case record and materials available therein.

5. It is ascertained from the record that almost 11 months have already been passed since the date of appearance by the O.P. No. 3, but they kept silent, neither filed their counter nor submitted their views, hence we think, the O.P. No. 3 has nothing to submit regarding the present disputes.  Since no Opp. Parties are appeared in this case, the allegations made against them, remained unchallenged and unrebuttal.

6. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding purchase of the alleged mobile handset by the complainant from the O.P.No.1 bearing model RedMi K20 Pro Red (6+128) Black Red Gradient mobile bearing IMEI No. 867482046653731 from O.P.No.1 and paid Rs. 25,000/- vide invoice no. 96 dated 29.07.2020 alongwith warranty certificate and complainant has filed document to that effect.  The allegations of complainant is that 1 month after it’s use, the said mobile handset showed defects like touch screen, instant hanging and overheat performance in its body part and did not function properly, since there is no authorized service center in the locality, he deposited the alleged handset with the O.P.No.1, who after one month returned the said mobile handset after being repaired by O.P. No. 2 but after 15 days, the said mobile showed again the hanging problem and on approach to O.P.No.1 regarding the existence of further defects, the O.P.No.1, who kept the mobile for about 15 to 20 days, returned the mobile after being repaired by O.P. No. 2, but complainant found the same defects alongwith additional defects like display problems, became lying unused.  Complainant also filed the Job Card issued by the O.P. No. 2 which clearly shows as “handset dead”.Since the O.P. No. 2 did not appear throughout the proceeding, we lost every opportunities to hear from him so also to come to a conclusion that whether the alleged mobile handset was properly repaired or the alleged product is having inherent problems?Whereas the O.P. No.3 though appeared in the case, but 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 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, at the time of hearing, only the complainant was present, as such we have taken the exparte hearing and since the O.Ps are absent on call, we have no hesitation to disbelieve the allegations of complainant and therefore, the allegations of complainant is well established, so also the absence of the O.Ps makes the averments of complainant strong and vital.

8. Further, the defects were occurred during the warranty period though the mobile handset was used for 1 month, which was repaired by the O.P. No. 1 through O.P. No. 2, but the same defects were persisted alongwith some additional defects even after of its repair was carried out by O.P. No.2, as such the complainant prayed for the cost of the mobile from the O.Ps.  We feel, the alleged mobile handset must have inherent defects which needs to be replaced or costs of product should be refunded.   During hearing, complainant submitted that due to such improper service, he has prayed for costs of mobile handset, which is also mentioned in the prayer clause of the prayer portion of the complaint petition.   Hence we think, refunding of costs of alleged mobile handset will be just and proper.

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 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. 10,000/- 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.3 being the manufacturer of the alleged product is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged mobile handset i.e. Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant alongwith Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation within 45 days from 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 complainant is directed to hand over the alleged mobile handset to the O.P.No.3 at the time of complying the order by them.

          Pronounced in the open Court on this the 24^th day of August, 2022.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.