1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 14.10.2018 she purchased one Samsung A.C. product no. AR18NV3JGMCNNA – SAC (03ZEPPCK200362), HSN No. 84151010 and AR18NV3JGMCXNA – SAC (03ZEPPAK200373), HSN No. 84151010 from O.P. No. 1 vide invoice no. 47197 for consideration of Rs. 42,000/- with 5 years warranty certificate.  It is alleged that the alleged product was installed in her house on 1^st week of January, 2019 without any demos.  It is alleged that after using the said product for about 6 to 7 months, the cooling system did not function properly and noise came out from the alleged product and on approach to O.P. No. 1, on 06.07.2019 the technician of O.P.No. 2 repaired the same vide their invoice no. 4286076187, but could not properly repaired.It is also alleged that in the month of March, 2020 the defects persisted again but due to COVID problem, the O.Ps could not carried out the repair of the alleged A.C., but however, on 13.07.2021 the repair work was carried out and the alleged A.C. was handed over to complainant on 24.07.2021 vide invoice no. 4328060456.Again after some defects occurred, the technician of O.P. No. 2 raised another invoice no. 4344175779 dated 28.03.2022, whereas the technician suggested for having inherent problems.Thus showing the 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 the A.C. and to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- 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 submiss7ions keeping in view of natural justice, as such, we have lost 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 manufacture of the alleged product so also sale of alleged A.C. to the complainant but denied all other facts contending that the complainant purchased the product to her entire satisfaction and all the products of O.P. No. 2 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 her allegation and also the defects in the said A.C. are not in their knowledge, so also nor the complainant intimated them regarding any defect, as such showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.

4. Except Complainant no other parties to the present disputes, have filed any documents.  Complainant filed invoice against the produt and 3 nos. of job sheets.  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 A.C. to the Complainant alongwith warranty certificate and Complainant filed documents to that effect.  The allegations of complainant is that that the alleged product was installed in her house on 1^st week of January, 2019 without any demos and after using the said product for about 6 to 7 months, the cooling system did not function properly and noise came out from the alleged product and on approach to O.P. No. 1, on 06.07.2019 the technician of O.P. No. 2 repaired the same vide their invoice no. 4286076187, but could not properly repaired.  It is also alleged that in the month of March, 2020 the defects persisted again but due to COVID problem, the O.Ps could not carried out the repair of the alleged A.C., but however, on 13.07.2021 the repair work was carried out and the alleged A.C. was handed over to complainant on 24.07.2021 vide invoice no. 4328060456.  Again after some defects occurred, the technician of O.P. No. 2 raised another invoice no. 4344175779 dated 28.03.2022, whereas the technician suggested for having inherent problems.   Complainant filed 3 nos of job sheet towards the service carried out the technician of O.Ps to prove her submissions.  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 choose to contradict the Job sheets filed by the complainant which were issued by their technician and though 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 by the O.Ps.  In this connections, 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.”   

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, was sold by O.P. No. 1 to the Complainant.  The allegations of the Complainant regarding the fact that after its repair, she found defects in the alleged A.C. time and again with a suggestion of having inherent defect, was well corroborated by her 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.

7. Further, the defects were occurred during the warranty period though the A.C. was used for 6 to 7 months, which was also repaired by the authorized technicians, but the defects could not solve.  The job sheets clearly proves the defects in the alleged A.C.  Further it is settled principle of law that if any products exhibits defects from the time to time, than presumption can be taken for inherent defects. Further 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, whereas the O.P. No. 2 has overlooked the job sheets filed by the complainant which were issued by their authorized technician, hence we do not think that the plea of O.P. No. 2 will help them from any angle.

8. Further lying the said A.C. for more than 3 years with several defects, in our view, is having inherent defects, which 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 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 her sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 3,000/- 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 A.C. i.e. Rs. 42,000/- to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order alongwith compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards causing mental agony, physical harassment and Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of litigation, failing which, the said cost of product i.e. Rs. 42,000/- shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till payment.  Further the Complainant is herewith directed to hand over the alleged  A.C. to the O.P.No.2 at the time of complying the order by them.

Pronounced in the open Court on this the 24^th days of August, 2022. 

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.