1. Brief fact of the case of complainant is that he purchased one I-Tel mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. it5250 having IMEI No. 911621502877401 and paid Rs. 1,400/- vide invoice no. 09 dated 16.07.2018 alongwith warranty certificate and 3 months after its purchase, the said mobile showed several defects like overheat problem in a little charge battery and automatically the charging comes down within a few second, for which he consulted with the O.P.No. 1, who kept the alleged mobile for about 1 month and returned as fully repaired by the O.P. No. 2. After two months, the alleged mobile showed the previous defects alongwith additional defects like keypad problem, as such he again handed over the mobile to O.P. No.1 for its proper repair, who suggested to come after one month, but in the month of May 2019, O.P. No.1 returned the mobile without repair as having inherent manufacturing defects in the motherboard.On contact with the O.P.No.2, they did not register the complaint nor took any proper steps, thus showing deficiency in service of the O.Ps. he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of mobile with Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation expenses.

2. O.P. No. 1 though received the notice sent through Regd. Post vide RL No. RO909974865IN dated 04.06.2019, but did not choose to appear in this case nor filed his counter versions nor also participated in the hearing, inspite of repeated opportunities given to them, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from him and all the allegations made against him remained unchallenged and became unrebuttal.

3. On the other hand, the O.P.No.2 though appeared in this case, but did not choose to file their counter versions nor participated in the hearing also, inspite of repeated adjournments given to them for their submissions keeping in view of natural justice, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them and all the allegations are remained unchallenged and unrebuttal from the side of O.P. No. 2 also.
    
4. Except Complainant no other parties to the present disputes, have filed any documents. During hearing, except complainant no other parties are present, as such we heard only from the complainant.  Perused the case records and material documents available in the record and we have decided the case on merit.  

5. It is a documentary fact that the alleged mobile handset was purchased by the complainant from the O.P.No.1 bearing model no. it5250 having IMEI No. 911621502877401 and paid Rs. 1,400/- vide invoice no. 09 dated 16.07.2018 alongwith warranty certificate.  The allegations of complainant is that  3 months after its purchase, the mobile handset showed several defects like overheat problem in a low charge of battery and automatically the charging comes down within a few second, for which he handed over the alleged mobile to the O.P.No. 1 for its repair who kept the alleged mobile for about 1 month and returned as fully repaired by the O.P. No. 2.  Further allegations of complainant is that after two months, the alleged mobile showed the previous defects alongwith additional defects like keypad problem, as such he again handed over the mobile to O.P. No.1 for its proper repair, who suggested to come after one month, but in the month of May 2019, O.P. No.1 returned the mobile any without repair as having inherent manufacturing defects in the motherboard and on contact with the O.P.No.2, they did not register the complaint nor took any proper steps.  Since the O.P. No. 1 did not choose to appear in this case and the O.P. No. 2 though appeared but did not choose to file their counter version to make any contradiction so also did not participate in the haring, we lost every opportunities to hear from them, as such we have no hesitation to disbelieve the versions of the complainant.And the averments made by the complainant became unrebuttal from the side of all 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, wherein it is held that that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”

6. Further, it is ascertained that the defects were occurred during the warranty period though the mobile handset was used only for 3 months and complainant deposited the same on many occasions with O.P. No.1 which was also never been disputed by any of the parties, thus the allegations of complainant became unrebuttal from the side of all O.Ps. Further lying the said mobile handset for years without any use, in our view, is of no use.

7. Observing the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the O.P. No.1 might have repaired the alleged mobile handset with the help of any local unauthorized technicians but not by the authorized technicians of the O.p. No.2, for which the defects reiterated time to time.  Had the O.P. No. 1 repaired the alleged mobile through any authorized service center of O.P. No.2, than the defects in the mobile handset could have easily rectified and the complainant would not have suffered.   

8. Hence considering the above discussions, we feel, the complainant deserves to be compensated for not providing better service by the O.Ps, 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 end 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 mobile handset i.e. Rs. 1,400/- to the complainant and also to pay 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 costs of mobile handset shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till payment. 

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 4^th day of November, 2020.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.