1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Techno mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. I 4 (4/64), having IMEI No. 911650451565188 vide invoice no. 310 dated 11.05.2020 for consideration of Rs. 11,000/- alongwith warranty certificate.  It is alleged that two months after its use, the said mobile handset showed defects like battery back up problem / overheat performance in its body part and did not function properly, for which he contacted with the O.P. No. 1 and as per his advise he handed over the said mobile handset with him, who after one month returned the said mobile with a false belief that the mobile was repaired, but on using the same, he found the said mobile showed the previous defect and again contacted with the O.Ps., and as per their advise he again handed over the alleged mobile to the O.P. No.1, who kept the same for about one month and on September, 2020 returned the same stating that of having inherent manufacturing defects, thus showing the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of the mobile handset and to pay Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.

2. On the other hand, though the O.P. No. 1 received the notice did not choose to appear in this case nor filed his 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 opportunities to hear from him.

3. The O.P. No. 2, though appeared in this case, but did not choose to filed their counter nor also participated in the hearing, inspite of ample opportunities given to them keepin in view of natural justice, as such we lost every opportunities to heard from them and also to come to know whether the alleged mobile handset is having manufacturing defect, hence, the allegations of complainant remained unchallenged.
    
4. Except complainant no other party to the present dispute has filed any documents.  During hearing, only complainant was present, as such we heard from the complainant at length and perused the case records and material documents available therein.

5. In this case, it is an evidentiary fact that the complainant had purchased the alleged Techno mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. I 4 (4/64), having IMEI No. 911650451565188 vide invoice no. 310 dated 11.05.2020 for consideration of Rs. 11,000/- alongwith warranty certificate.  Complainant filed document to that effect. The allegations of complainant is that two months after its use, the said mobile handset showed defects like battery back up problem / overheat performance in its body part and did not function properly, for which he contacted with the O.P. No. 1 and as per his advise he handed over the said mobile handset with him, who after one month returned the said mobile with a false belief that the mobile was repaired, but on using the same, he found the said mobile showed the previous defect and again contacted with the O.Ps., and as per their advise he again handed over the alleged mobile to the O.P. No.1, who kept the same for about one month and on September, 2020 returned the same stating that of having inherent manufacturing defects.  Since the O.P. No.1 did not appeared in this case and though the O.P. No.2 appeared but did not file their counter version nor participated in the hearing, we lost opportunities to come to a conclusion that whether the alleged mobile handset was properly repaired through the expert of the O.P.No.2 by the O.P. No.1 and the alleged mobile handset is having inherent manufacturing defects, as such, the allegations made by the complainant became unrebuttal from the side of both the O.Ps.   
    
6. Further, at the time of hearing, except complainant, no other parties are present on repeated calls, for which we lost every opportunities to come to know that whether the submissions of the complainant contains any truth or not.  However, as per documentary evidence, it is ascertained that the alleged mobile handset in dispute was manufactured by O.P.No.2 which was sold to the complainant through O.P. No. 1.  The allegations of the complainant regarding the fact that after one month of its repair, it showed the previous defects, was well corroborated by him at the time of hearing.  No contestant O.P. is there either to challenge the versions of complainant or to make it contradict.  As such the allegations of complainant became unrebuttal from the side of the O.Ps.  In this connection, 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, wherein Hon’ble Commission has held that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”   

7. Further, it is seen that the defects were occurred during the warranty period though the mobile handset was used for 2 months only, which was repaired by the O.P. No. 1, but the same defects were persisted even after of its repair was made, as such the complainant prayed for refund of the cost of the mobile from the O.Ps.  We feel, the alleged mobile handset must have repaired by the O.P. No. 1 through the local technicians as per his own choice but not by any authorized technicians of O.P.No.2, for which the alleged mobile handset reiterated its previous defects and in our view, such type of practice adopted by the O.P. No. 1 is clearly establishes the principle of deficiency in service. 

8. We feel, had the O.P. No.1 rectified the alleged defects occurred in the mobile handset through one authorized service center set up by the O.P.No.2, then the defects of the mobile handset could have 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 mobile handset 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 since no authorized service center of O.P. No. 2 is available in the present locality, as such the customers who purchase the products of the O.P.No. 2 from the O.P. No. 1 must have depended on him 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 defects as per his own choice by the help of unauthorized technicians, which is not permissible in the eye of law.Further it is the duty on the part of the O.P. No.2 to make an interval inspection to their authorized dealers regarding sale and service of the manufactured products.But in the instant case, the O.P. No.2 has not taken any steps to provide service to the complainant.

9. Further lying the said mobile handset for a long period without any repair and use, in our view, is of no use.

10. Hence considering the above discussions, we feel, the complainant deserves to be compensated with adequate compensation and costs for not providing better service by the O.Ps their valuable customer like 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 mobile handset is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged mobile handset i.e. Rs. 11,000/- to the complainant and also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- for costs of litigation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the cost of mobile shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. till payment.