1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 03.07.2021 he purchased one Sony Home Theater with four numbers of speakers bearing model no. SA-D40 B speaker 1445425 from the O.P.No.1 vide invoice no. 12272 dated 03.07.2021 and paid Rs. 9,500/-.  It is alleged that after 2 to 3 days, he found some noise sound on use and voice did not hear properly, thus he contacted with the O.P.No.1, who kept the same and advised to come after 15 days, but returned the same after one month in the month of November, 2021.It is alleged that using after two days, the previous defects reiteratedand on contact with O.P. No. 1 who again kept the alleged product for about 2 months but no repair work was carried by the O.Ps, thus with other allegations, he filed this case praying for the refund of costsof alleged product of Rs. 9,500/- and Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation.
    
2. The O.P No. 1 though, being the local party, received the notice from the Commission, but did not choose to appear in this case, nor filed his counter version nor participated in the hearing also, as such we lost every opportunities from him.

3. The O.P. No. 2 appeared and filed their written version admitting the sale of the alleged product to the complainant but denied their liabilities contending that they received the complaint of complainant through the O.P. No. 1 on 27.11.2021 and registered the same vide Job sheet no. J12181641 and attended promptly and finding defects on the alleged speaker they have replaced the same with a new one as on 28.12.2021.  It is also contended that after receipt of complaint from the complainant, they have inspected the matter and ascertained that the speaker bearing model no. 1445425 which was repaired by him got swapped with another unit having different serial number 1444255 by the O.P. No. 1 at his counter and the same was returned to the O.P. No. 1 also.   It is also contended that the O.P.No. 1 has swapped two numbers of speakers and delivered the wrong speaker to the complainant.  Thus showing their no liabilities, they prayed to dismiss the case.

4. Parties have filed their respective documents in support of their submissions.  Heard from the parties at length. Perused the case record and materials available therein.
    
5. It is an admitted fact that the alleged product was sold to the complainant by the O.P. No. 1 bearing model no. SA-D40 B speaker 1445425 vide invoice no. 12272 dated 03.07.2021 for consideration of Rs. 9,500/-. It is also an admitted fact that during valid period of warranty, the alleged product exhibited defects.  The allegations of complainant is that using after 2 to 3 days, the alleged product exhibited some audio problem on use, thus he contacted with the O.P.No.1, who kept the same and advised to come after 15 days, but returned the same after one month in the month of November, 2021 and using again after two days, the previous defects reiterated and on contact with O.P. No. 1 who again kept the alleged product for about 2 months but no repair work was carried by the O.Ps.  Since the O.P. No.1 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 speakers were properly repaired through the expert technician of the O.P.No.2 ?  Though the O.P.No.2 challenged the same stating that the defects occurred in the mobile handset were not in their knowledge, but did not choose to adduce any cogent evidence either from an expert opinion nor obtained any evidence from their channel partner i.e. O.P.No.1 and the since the O.P. No.1 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.”   

6. Further, at the time of hearing, the A/R for O.P. No.2 argued that as and when they received the complaint of complainant, they have immediately replaced the defective parts with a new one and on inspection, they came to know that the O.P. No. 1 has already swapped two numbers of speakers and since there is principal to principal relation between the O.P. 2 & 1, any liability on the part of O.P. No. 1 cannot be conferred upon them.Though the O.P. No. 2 argued strongly, but miserably failed to filed any documentary evidence showing that their relationship with O.P. No.1 is principal to principal, and without any documentary evidence, such plea cannot be sustained as per law. Further, it is also observed that as per complaint of complainant, the O.P. No. 2 has provided prompt service to satisfy the complainant.

7. 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 to the effect that the defects were not in their knowledge till 27.11.2021.  However, the O.P.No.2 has admitted that the alleged product in dispute was manufactured by them which was sold to the complainant.  The allegations of the complainant regarding the fact that after its first repair, it exhibited the previous defects alongwith some additional defects, 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 adduce any evidence to that effect, therefore, the allegations of complainant is well  established, and the absence of O.P.No.1 makes the averments of complainant strong and vital.

8. Further, the defects were occurred during the warranty period though the speaker was used only for 2 to 3 days, which was repaired by the O.P. No. 1, but the same defects were persisted alongwith some additional defects even after of its repair was carried out by O.P. No.1, as such the complainant prayed for the cost of the product from the O.Ps.  We feel, the alleged product 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 product 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. 
    
9. We feel, had the O.P. No.1 rectified the alleged defects occurred in the speakers through one authorized service center set up by the O.P.No.2, then the defects of the speakers 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 product 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 in the present locality, though there is no authorized service center is exist, the customers who purchase such type of product 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 by the help of local unauthorized technicians, which is not permissible as per law. 

10. Further during hearing, the A/R for O.P. No.2 submitted that after receipt of the complaint from the complainant, they offered the proposal either for refund of cost of product or to replace the defective parts with a new model, which is also admitted by the complainant.   Hence we think, the O.P. No. 2 has tried their level best to provide service to the complainant, but it is also the duty on the part of O.P. No.2 to check the activities of the channel partners periodically, because the customers are purchasing the products of O.P. No. 2 only due to name of company but not of the name of the retailers.  Hence the O.P. No. 2 is herewith directed to have a periodically visit to the retailers and service centers.

11. It is also observed that lying the said product for a long period without any repair and use, in our view, is of no use.

12. Hence considering the above discussions, we feel, the complainant deserves to be compensated with adequate compensation and costs for non providing proper service by the O.P. No. 1, who is the authorized seller of the O.P. No. 2, 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. 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.2 being the manufacturer of the alleged product is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged product i.e. Rs. 9,500/- to the complainant alongwith compensation of Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the cost of product shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of sale i.e. 03.07.21 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, if they desire to do so.  Further the complainant is directed to hand over the alleged product to the O.P.No.2 at the time of complying the order by them.

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 17^th day of August, 2022.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.