1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that on 25.01.2019 he alongwith his friend purchased one water purified bottle from O.P. No.1 for Rs. 20/- and while on attempt to drink the same, he found that some dust particles are floating inside the bottle which is not in a position to drink.  It is alleged that while on enquiry to the O.P. No. 1 regarding such dust particles, he expressed his inability and suggested to lodge claim with the O.P. No. 2.  It is also alleged that on the next day while on enquiry with the O.P. No.2, who bluntly replied with rude voice and misbehaved the complainant, thus alleging unfair trade practice on the part of O.Ps, he filed this case with a prayer to direct O.Ps to refund the paid amount of Rs.20/- and to pay Rs. 50,000/-and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and costs of litigation to him.
    
2. The O.P. No.1, though received the notice from the Fora, but did not choose to appear in the proceeding, inspite of several opportunities given to him keeping in view of natural justice, as such we lost opportunities to hear from him so also come to know that whether the allegations of complainant is true and the allegations of complainant against the O.P. No. 1 remain unchallenged and unrebuttal.  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 “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”
    
3. On the other hand, the O.P.No.2 appeared and filed his counter admitting manufacture of alleged bottle and its sale through their dealer and retailer but denied the other allegations contending that the complainant has not produced any documents to prove his allegations.  Further it is contended that their products are put in a stringent control system with highly qualified technicians and engineers before it goes to market for sale and also contended that they have made direction to their retailer to return the bottle if not sale within 10 days and since the O.P. No. 1 has not returned the bottle within time period, and for such act of O.P. No. 1 he is not liable at all.  Further it is contended that neither the O.P. No. 1 nor the complainant has made any complaint to him regarding any issues, as such showing his no liability, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.
    
4. Complainant filed affidavit in support of his allegations, whereas the O.P. No. 2 did not choose to file any documents in support of his contentions inspite of repeated opportunities given to them.  Heard from the parties present and perused the records and documents available therein.
    
5. It is an admitted fact that the complainant on 25.01.2019 purchased one water purified bottle from O.P. No.1 for Rs. 20/- which was packaged on 27.09.2018.  The allegations of complainant is that while on attempting to consume the water, he found some dust particles floating inside the bottle which is clearly visible in the naked eye and on enquiry to the O.P. No. 1, who suggested the complainant to lodge claim to the O.P. No. 2 and the said fact is remained unchallenged, as the O.P. No. 1 did not choose to appear in this case to make any contradiction. 
    
6. Complainant has filed affidavit in support of his allegations and also produced the alleged water bottle for our perusal.  We examined the water bottle which is sealed one and in order also, and some dust particles are also floating inside the said bottle which is clearly visible to the naked eyes.  The O.P.No.2 though filed his counter have only stated that the alleged water bottle was manufactured and marketed by him and he is ignorant about the dust particles floating inside the bottle and neither the complainant nor the O.P. No. 1 made any complaint to him regarding the matter of disputes and since the O.P. No. 1 has violated the conditions of O.P. No. 2 by not returning the alleged water bottle, while the same is not sold within time period, as such he denied his liability. 
    
7. As the dust particles are clearly visible inside the water bottle, which is full of water, we have no hesitation to hold that the water inside the bottle is spurious and hazardous to health.  In this case, though the complainant has not consumed water bottle, as such he has not suffered any physical sufferings.  Further, had the complainant not seen the dust particles floating inside the alleged water bottle he would have consumed the same and such consumption would have lead to health hazards of the complainant.  Hence no physical injuries occurred to the complainant in any manner.  Further, dust particles inside the water bottle shows gross irregularities on the part of the O.P. No. 2 while preparing the same which leads to deficiency in service.  Many such cases have also been filed before different courts.  Inspite of those instances, the O.P. No. 2 is not alerted enough to prepare the water bottles in a hygienic manner.  Further, the complainant has also approached the O.P.No.1 who did not help the complainant in any manner.In this circumstances, we observe that the though the complainant has not suffered any physical injuries but definitely suffers from mental agony and financial loss and has also come up with this case incurring some expenditure for which he is to be suitably compensated and in our view, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- which includes all, in favour of the complainant will meet the end of justice.

ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part and the O.P. No.2 being the manufacturer of the alleged water bottle, is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony, costs of litigation and other expenses to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order.

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 5^th day of September, 2019.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.