1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 15.03.2021 she purchased one Haier Visicooler refrigerator bearing model No. Hvc – 340GHC  BW00BJE6K00BULB40111 from O.P.No.1 bearing and paid Rs. 37,000/- vide invoice no. CRI/0037 dated 15.03.2021 alongwith warranty certificate.  It is alleged that 3 month after its use, the alleged refrigerator exhibited noisy sound and non cooling and as per approach to O.P. No.1, the mechanic of O.P. No.1 came and repaired the same, but after 2 to 3 hours, the alleged refrigerator did not function and became paralyzed.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 alleged refrigerator and to pay Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to her.

2. The O.P. No. 1 though received the notice of this Commission, did not choose to appear in this case, neither he filed the counter / written version nor also participated in the hearing, inspite of several opportunities / adjournments have given to him for his submissions keeping in view of natural justice, as such, we lost every opportunities to hear from him.

3. The O.P. No.2 The O.P. No. 1 though received the notice of this Commission sent through Regd. Post vide RL No. RO010128267IN dated 03.09.2021, did not choose to appear in this case, neither they filed the counter / written version nor also participated in the hearing, inspite of several opportunities / adjournments have given to them for their submissions keeping in view of natural justice, as such, we lost every opportunities to hear from him.

4. Except Complainant no other parties to the present disputes, have filed any documents.  During hearing, only the complainant was present, as such we heard from the complainant at length and decided the matter exparte.  Perused the documents and materials available in the record.

5. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the O.P. No. 1 has sold the alleged product to the complainant bearing model No. Hvc – 340GHC  BW00BJE6K00BULB40111 from O.P.No.1 bearing and paid Rs. 37,000/- vide invoice no. CRI/0037 dated 15.03.2021 alongwith warranty certificate.  The allegations of complainant that 3 month after its use, the alleged refrigerator exhibited noisy sound and non cooling and as per approach to O.P. No.1, the mechanic of O.P. No.1 came and repaired the same, but after 2 to 3 hours, the alleged refrigerator did not function and became paralyzed.Since both the O.Ps did not appear in the case throughout the proceeding, whereas both the O.Ps. though received the notice from this Commission, 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, both the O.Ps are absent on repeated calls, for which we lost opportunities to hear from them.  Since no contradictions brought out, we have no hesitation to disbelieve the version of complainant, as such the allegations of complainant is well  established, so also the absence of the O.Ps make the averments of complainant strong and vital.

7. It is observed that the defects in the refrigerator occurred within 3 months from the date of purchase under warranty.  We feel, had the O.P. No.1 rectified the alleged defects occurred in the alleged refrigerator through one authorized service center set up by the O.P.No.2, then the defects of the product 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 complaint of defects in the alleged refrigerator 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 a common phenomena that any customer who purchases a banded product from any showroom, first they depend on the concerned showroom to avail proper service.  In the present case in hand, the same has happened and we feel, since there is authorized service center of O.P. No.2 is available in the present locality, the O.P. No.1 might have taken the assistance of local unauthorized technicians, which is not permissible as per law.

8. Further lying the said refrigerator for a long period without any repair and use, in our view, 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 their valuable customer like 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. 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 mobile handset i.e. Rs. 37,000/- 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 refrigerator shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of purchase till payment.  Further the complainant is directed to hand over the alleged refrigerator to the O.P.No.2 at the time of complying the order.

       Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 22^nd day of August, 2022.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.