1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 26.08.2020 he purchased one Realme C1 2/32 mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing IMEI No. 869977047981617 and paid Rs. 8,000/- vide invoice no. 599 dated 26.08.2020 with warranty certificate.  It is alleged that two months after its use, the mobile handset exhibited battery backup problem / instant hanging / overheat performance in its body part, for which he deposited with the O.P.No.1, who after one month, returned the mobile handset being repaired fully.  It is further alleged that on many occasions, the alleged mobile handset exhibited several defects which was also repaired by the O.P. No. 1.It is further alleged that in the 2^nd week of March, 2021 while his daughter using the alleged mobile for her online classes, suddenly she got electric shock from the mobile hand and was shifted to hospital for proper checkup.While contact with the O.P. No.1 for replacement of the alleged mobile under warranty, whereas the O.P. No. 1 advised to contact with the O.P. No. 2 stating that the alleged mobile handset is having manufacturing defects, thus showing deficiency in service, he filed this case claiming refunding of the cost of the mobile handset and to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs 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 filed his counters / written versions 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 of him.

3. Complainant has filed certain documents to prove his allegations such as invoice bills, medical report of Subhashree Parida issued by DHH, Malkangiri vide OPD Reg. No. 211232100225578.  Heard from the complainant at length.  Perused the case record and material documents available therein.

4. It is documentary fact that on 26.08.2020, complainant purchased the alleged Realme mobile from the O.P. No. 1 vide no. 599 for Rs. 8,000/- bearing IMEI No. 869977047981617.  Complainant filed document to that effect.  The allegations of complainant is that two months after its use, the mobile handset exhibited several problem and as per his request, the O.P. No.1 repaired the same but no proper repair work carried out.  Further allegations is that in the month in the 2^nd week of March, 2021 while his daughter using the alleged mobile for her online classes, suddenly she got electric shock from the mobile hand and was shifted to hospital for proper checkup.  Complainant filed document to that effect.  And on contact with the O.P. No.1 for replacement of the alleged mobile under warranty, whereas the O.P. No. 1 advised to contact with the O.P. No. 2 stating that the alleged mobile handset is having manufacturing defects.Since the O.P. No. 1 is absent throughout the proceeding, we have every opportunities to hear from him, as such the allegations of complainant remained unchallenged and unrebuttal.

5. Further, at the time of hearing, both the O.Ps are absent on repeated calls, for which we lost opportunities to come to know that whether the alleged mobile handset suffers from manufacturing defects.  Since no contradiction / challenge  made by the O.Ps., we feel the  O.Ps. have nothing to say in this case.  Though the O.Ps  have received the notices from the Commission, and did not appear throughout the proceeding, as such the allegations of complainant is well  established, so also their absence make the allegations of complainant became strong and vital.  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.”   

6. Further, it is observed that the defects were occurred during the warranty period though the mobile handset was used for two months, which was repaired by the O.P. No. 1, but the same defects were persisted even after of its repair by O.P. No.1, as such the complainant prayed for 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 but not by any authorized technicians of O.P.No.2, for which the alleged mobile handset reiterated its previous defects alongwith some additional defects and such type of practice adopted by the O.P. No. 1 is clearly established the principle of deficiency in service. 

7. We feel, had the O.P. No.1 rectified the alleged defects occurred in the mobile handset through any authorized service center set by the O.P.No.2, then the defects of the mobile handset could have easily and properly rectified.  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.  In the present case, since there is no authorized service center in the present locality, the customers who purchase the products of the 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 defects as per his own choice by the help of unauthorized technicians, which is not permitted in the eye of law.

8. Further lying the said mobile handset for more than two years without any 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 the complainant, as the complainant must have suffered mental agony and physical harassment, for which the complainant was compelled to file this case incurring some expenses.  Considering his sufferings we feel a sum of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 2000/- towards compensation and costs 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. 8,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till payment alongwith Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- for costs of litigation to the complainant. Further the complainant is directed to hand over the alleged mobile handset to the O.P.No.2 at the time of complying the order by O.P.No.2.

          Pronounced in the open Court on this the 30^th day of August, 2020.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.