1. Brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 05.02.2018 he purchased one B.M. water purifier bearing model Crown having its Sl. No. MaBM55311996 from O.P. No. 1 and paid Rs. 15,000/- vide invoice no. 22 dated 05.02.2018 alongwith warranty certificate.  It is alleged that the sales boy of O.P. No.1 though installed the said product at the house of complainant but advised him to wait for some days so that the technicians of O.P. No. 2 will demonstrate the use of alleged product, but since he did not come and on contact with the O.P. No. 1 who sent the his own sales boy for such demonstration, but the same was not satisfactory.Further it is alleged that after using the for about 15 to 20 days, he found the electric connection to the handle is not working properly, for which, he contacted with the O.P. No.1, who returned the said cooler after being repaired.Further it is alleged that after using for about a week, he again found the water is not purified, and on contact with the O.P. No.1, who suggested to send the same to the O.P. No.2 for proper inspection and make him wait for about 2 months.After receiving the same, complainant found some noise from inside and with other allegations, thus being suffered from mental agony and harassment, he filed this case with a prayer to refund the cost of alleged products and Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and cost.

2. The O.P. No. 1 though received the notice from the Fora as on 29.01.2019 did not choose to appear in this case nor filed his counter version nor participated in the hearing also, as such we lost every opportunities to know about the facts.  

3. The O.P. No. 2 appeared and filed their counter admitting sale of alleged product to the complainant, has denied the allegations contending that they are dealing with business of manufacturing, trading and supplying various items pertaining to PP Resin, PVC Resin, Water purifier Systems (RO), Sediments Carbon, Sediment Filter, RO Membrane, Booster Pump etc and also contended that they always provide assistance during the warranty period as and when they receive any complaints and also they provide service to the complainant and with other contentions, showing their no deficiency, they prayed to dismiss the case.
    
4. Complainant has filed documents like invoice vide no. 22 dated 05.02.2018 issued by O.P. No.1 and one warranty certificate, whereas the O.P. No.2 has filed one service details vide request no. 58710 issued in favour of one Shwirajyati Kaur.  Heard from the parties.  Perused the case record and material documents available therein.
    
5. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the alleged product from the O.P.No. 1 being manufactured by the O.P. No.2. alongwith warranty certificate.  The allegation of complainant is that the sales boy of O.P. No.1 though installed the said product at his house but made him wait for some days so that the technicians of O.P. No. 2 will demonstrate the use of alleged product, but since he did not come and on contact with the O.P. No. 1 who sent the his own sales boy for such demonstration, but the same was not satisfactory.  Though the O.P. No. 2 has challenged the same but to make it contrary they did not choose to file any document showing that the installation of alleged product was satisfactory to the complainant.  The allegation of complainant is that after using the said product for about 15 to 20 days, he found the electric connection to the handle is not working properly, for which, he contacted with the O.P. No.1, who returned the said cooler after being repaired.  Since the O.P. No.1 did not appear throughout the proceeding, as such we lost every opportunity to come to know that the alleged product was repaired through any authorized technicians of O.P. No.2 to the satisfaction of complainant.  Further it is alleged that after using for about a week, he again found the water is not purified, and on contact with the O.P. No.1, who suggested to send the same to the O.P. No.2 for proper inspection and make him wait for about 2 months.  After receiving the same, complainant found some noise from inside, though the O.P. No.2 has challenged the said version of complainant but to make it contrary they did not choose to file any document in support of their contentions.  Whereas the O.P. No.2 has filed only one document i.e. service details vide request no. 58710 issued in favour of one Shwirajyati Kaur and in our view the said document is no way related with the present dispute.Hence without any cogent evidence, the contentions of O.P. No.2 has no meaning.Catena of decisions of higher Forums are highlighted the same and as such the allegations of complainant remained undisputed and unrebuttal.
    
6. Further at the time of hearing, only the complainant is present and O.Ps are absent on repeated calls.  We heard only from the complainant.  Since no cogent evidence is there from the side of O.Ps, we have no hesitation to disbelieve the allegations of Complainant and 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 it is held that that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”
    
7. Further, the defects in the alleged product were occurred during the warranty period though the product was used for about 15 to 20 days, which was repaired by the O.P. No. 1, but the same defects were persisted alongwith some additional defects even after of its repair was made by O.P. No.1, as such the complainant prayed for the cost of the mobile from the O.Ps.  We feel, the O.P. No. 1 has not repaired the alleged product properly, which resulted to exist 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. 
    
8. We feel, had the O.P. No.1 rectified the alleged defects occurred in the alleged product with proper care, then the defects could have easily and properly rectified, so that the complainant would not have suffered.  Further, being the manufacturer, it was the duty of O.P.No.2 to check out the day to day activities of their authorized dealers and service center as they have set up service center only to provide better service to their genuine customers.  By not taking steps for providing better service, the O.P. No. 2 have established their inefficiency in providing service.Further it is seen that in the present locality, though there is no authorized service center is set up, as such 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 providing improper service, which is not permissible in the eye of law.
    
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 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. 2,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 500/- 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 B.M. water purifier i.e. Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant and also to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 500/- towards costs of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the costs of product shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till payment.  Further the complainant is directed to hand over the alleged water purifier to the O.P.No.2 at the time of complying the order by them.

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 10^th day of February, 2021.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.