1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 20.03.2016 he purchased one Samsung refrigerator from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. 0304 RT27HAJSAR/TL and Sl. No. 03044PAF902634F and paid Rs. 25,000/- vide invoice no. 1194 dated 20.03.2016 covering 5 years warranty on the compressor.  It is alleged that on May 2016 due to extreme heat, cooling system of the said refrigerator did not function properly, for which he contacted with the O.P.No.1, who keeping the alleged product for about 1 month returned the same and complainant used for about 7 to 8 month and found the same problem as existed earlier and on contact, the O.P. No. 1 suggested to send the same to the O.P. No.2 for repair the compressor and waited him for 1 month.It is also alleged that till February, 2020 he made complaint 7 to 8 times to the O.P. No.1, but no results.It is also alleged that on March, 2020, the compressor did not function and became dead, and on contact, O.P. No.1 suggested of having manufacturing defects, thus showing deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and with other allegations, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to replace the 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 though received the notice of this Commission, did not choose to appear in this case, nor he filed the counter / written version nor also participated in the hearing inspite of several opportunities / adjournments have given to him for his submissions keeping in view of natural justice, as such, we lost every opportunities to hear from him.
    
3. The O.P. No. 2 is represented through their Ld. Counsel, who appeared and filed their counter in shape of written version admitting the sale of alleged refrigerator to the complainant but denied all 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. Complainant filed the documents like copy of invoice, copy of warranty certificate, whereas O.P. No. 2 did not choose to file any documents in their support.  Heard from the complainant as well as from the A/R for O.P.No.2.  Perused the documents and materials available in the record.
    
5. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding sale of alleged refrigerator to the complainant by the O.P.No.1 bearing model no. 0304 RT27HAJSAR/TL and Sl. No. 03044PAF902634F and paid Rs. 25,000/- vide invoice no. 1194 dated 20.03.2016 covering 5 years warranty on the compressor and complainant has filed document to that effect.  The allegations of complainant is that on May 2016 due to extreme heat, cooling system of the said refrigerator did not function properly, for which he contacted with the O.P.No.1, who keeping the alleged product for about 1 month returned the same and complainant used for about 7 to 8 month and found the same problem as existed earlier and on contact, the O.P. No. 1 suggested to send the same to the O.P. No.2 for repair the compressor and waited him for 1 month.  It is also alleged that till February, 2020 he made complaint 7 to 8 times to the O.P. No.1, but no results.  It is also alleged that on March, 2020, the compressor did not function and became dead, and on contact, O.P. No.1 suggested of 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 product. Though the O.P.No.2 challenged the same stating that the defects occurred in the alleged product 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 Judgement 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 product 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 months of its use, it 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 well established, so also the absence of the O.P.No.1 makes the averments of Complainant strong and vital.
    
7. Further at the time of hearing, complainant submitted that he used the alleged product till February, 2020 by repairing many times by the O.P. No. 1 and since then the product lying dead, as such the complainant prayed for the cost of the refrigerator 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. 
    
8. We feel, had the O.P. No.1 entertained the complaint and rectified the alleged defects occurred in the refrigerator through one authorized service center set up by the O.P.No.2, then the defects of the alleged product 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 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 not providing the after sale service, which is not permissible in the eye of law.
    
9. Further lying the said refrigerator for a long period without any 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 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. 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 refrigerator i.e. Rs. 25,000/- and also to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- for costs of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the cost of refrigerator shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till payment. 

        Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 24^th day of March, 2021.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.