1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 03.07.2020 she purchased one Redmi Mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. Redmi 8 4/64 having IMEI No. 861495045001070 and paid Rs. 11,500/- vide invoice no. 20693 dated 03.07.2020 with warranty certificate.  It is alleged that after one month of its use, the said mobile handset showed defects in touch screen / instant hanging and overheat performance in its body part and did not function properly, for which she deposited the alleged handset with the O.P.No.1, who after 20 days returned the handset with a false believe of being repaired.  It is further alleged that using the said mobile handset for about 15 days, she found the previous defects and continue hanging problem and applications are not working properly and on contact with the O.P. No. 1 who received the mobile handset and after 15 to 20 days, returned the handset after it repair.  Thereafter using for about one month, she found the previous defects alongwith some additional defects like audio problem for which she did not get the benefits out of it.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, she filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of mobile handset and Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- 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 & 3 though received the notice from this Commission, but did not choose to appear in this case nor filed / send their counter version nor also participated in the hearing, inspite of several opportunities given to them for their submissions keeping in view of natural justice, hence, we lost every opportunities to hear from them.

4. Except complainant no other parties to the present dispute, have filed any documents.  During the time of hearing, we heard only from the complainant, as the O.Ps are absent inspite of repeated adjournments were provided to them.  Perused the record and materials documents available in the record.   Since the allegations made against the O.Ps are remained unchallenged and unrebuttal, as such we decided to proceed on merit.

5. In the instant case, it is an evidentiary fact that on 03.07.2020  complainant purchased the alleged Redmi Mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. Redmi 8 4/64 having IMEI No. 861495045001070 and paid Rs. 11,500/- vide invoice no. 20693 dated 03.07.2020 with warranty certificate.  There is also no dispute that after using one month, the said mobile handset showed defects in touch screen / instant hanging / overheat problem on the body part and did not function properly, for which the complainant on many occasions handed over the alleged mobile handset to the O.P. No. 1.  Though the same may be repaired by the O.P. No. 1 either through any authorized technician or any local technician, but the defects reiterates everytime, for which complainant could not get the benefits out of the alleged mobile for which she purchased.   Since no contradiction made out by any of the O.Ps, the allegation remained unchallenged and we think, the O.Ps have no objection to the allegations made against them.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 wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”

6. Further, the defects were occurred during the warranty period though the mobile handset was used only for one month, which was repaired by the O.P. No. 1, but the same defects were persisted repeatedly, as such the complainant prayed for the cost of the mobile from the O.Ps.  We feel, the O.P. No. 1 might have repaired the alleged mobile handset through any local technicians, for which the alleged mobile handset reiterated its previous 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.

7. Further, 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 & 3, 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 & 3 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 & 3 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 with the assistance of local unauthorized technicians, which is not permissible as per law.

8. 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 she was compelled to file this case incurring some expenses.  Considering her sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs. 3,000/- 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. 11,500/- to the complainant alongwith Rs. 3,000/- 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 purchase i.e. 03.07.2020 till payment.

        Pronounced in the open Court on this the 23^nd day of July, 2021.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.