1. Brief fact of the case of complainant is that he purchased one Sony LED TV from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. KLV 32 R 412D and Sl. No. 4314573 vide invoice no. 3284 dated 16.03.2020 and paid Rs. 26,800/- alongwith warranty certificate.  It is alleged that 4 to 5 months after it’s use, the alleged LED TV showed several defects like overheat performances on use for a little hours and did not function properly, for which he handed over the alleged LED TV with the O.P.No.1 for its replacement, but the O.P. No.1 keeping the alleged T.V for till September, 2020 and returned the same stating that the alleged T.V. was properly repaired under warranty.It is alleged that after one month of its use, the said T.V. exhibited the previous defects alongwith additional defects like red line over the screen and picture is not clearly visible and on cotact with the O.P.No. 1 who suggested to come after 2 months on the ground of COVID – 19 problem, and after receiving, th complainant found the same defects, for which, he could not get benefit out of it.Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, complainant filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of LED TV and Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- 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 though received the notice which was sent through Regd. Post vide RL. No. RO025007248IN dated 18.03.2021, but did not choose to appear in this case, nor filed 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. Since the O.Ps did not choose to appear in this case, the allegations made against the O.Ps. remained unchallenged and unrebuttal and we decided to proceed on merit.   

5. Except Complainant no other parties to the present disputes, have filed any documents.  During hearing, only complainant was present.  Heard from the Complainant only.  Perused the record and materials documents available in the record.

6. There is no dispute that complainant has purchased the alleged LED TV from the O.P.No.1 bearing model no. KLV 32 R 412D and Sl. No. 4314573 vide invoice no. 3284 dated 16.03.2020 alongwith warranty certificate and paid Rs. 26,800/-.  Complainant has filed document to that effect.  The allegation of complainant is that after using the same for about 4 to 5 months, the alleged LED TV showed several defects and he handed over the alleged LED TV to the O.P. No. 1 for replacement or repair and it is also alleged that on many occasions, the alleged T.V. exhibited defects one or more.  Though the T.V. was repaired by the O.P. No.1, but the defects reiterate itself.  Though the O.Ps have received the notice from the Commission but did not choose to appear in the case, and became silent over the same, as such the entire allegations of complainant remained unchallenged and unrebuttal. 

7. Further at the time of hearing, only the complainant is present and the submissions are well corroborated with his allegations.  Therefore, the allegations of Complainant is well established, so also the absence of the all the O.Ps make the averments of complainant strong and vital.  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.”

8. Further, it is ascertained from the submissions of complainant that the defects were occurred during the warranty period though the alleged TV was used only for 4 to 5 months, which was repaired by the O.P. No. 1, but the same defects were persisted alongwith some additional defects even after of its repair work was carried out by O.P. No.1, as such the complainant prayed for the cost of the mobile from the O.Ps.  We feel, the alleged TV 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 TV 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 TV through one authorized service center set up by the O.P.No.2, then the defects 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 TV 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 the customers who purchase any products of O.P. No. 2 from the O.P. No.1 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 with the assistance of local unauthorized technicians, which is not permissible as per law. 
    
10. 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 he was compelled to file this case incurring some expenses.  Considering his sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs. 5,000/- 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 LED T.V. i.e. Rs. 26,800/- to the complainant alongwith Rs. 5,000/- 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 order till payment.  Further the O.P.No.2 is at liberty to recover the amount paid by them from the O.P. No. 1 for non providing better service to the complainant.  Further the complainant is directed to hand over the alleged LED T.V. to the O.P.No.2 at the time of comply the order.

        Pronounced in the open Court on this the 18^th day of September, 2021.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.