1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that on 08.04.2015 he purchased one Lava Mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing Model No. Lava Iris Alfa having IMEI No. 911402200974646 & No. 911402200974653 and paid Rs. 6,400/- vide retail invoice no. 193 dated 08.04.2015 alongwith warranty certificate and 9 months after its purchase, the alleged mobile showed some defects in its functioning for which he did not get its utility.  It is alleged that in the month of January, 2016, the complainant reported the matter to the O.P.No.1 and narrated the defects and as per his advise, complainant deposited the mobile handset with the O.P.No.1 and 20 days after, complainant received the said mobile from the O.P.No.1 with a false belief that the defects were rectified.  It is further alleged that after using the mobile for some days, he found the same problems alongwith some additional defects in the alleged mobile handset and on approach to the O.P.No.1, who replied that the mobile is having manufacturing defects.  Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the costs of mobile hand and to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of litigation to him.

2. The O.P. No. 1 though received the notice from this Fora on 17.10.2017, but did not choose to appear in this case nor filed his counter version nor participated in the hearing also inspite of repeated adjournments given to him keeping in view of natural justice, as such, we lost opportunities to hear from him.

3. The O.P. No. 2, though received the notice from this Fora, which was sent through R.P. vide R.L. No. A RO86013976IN dated 27.10.2017, but did not choose to appear in the instant case, nor filed their counter version nor also participated in the hearing, as such we lost opportunities to hear from them, as such the allegations of complainant became unrebuttal and remained unchallenged on the part of the O.P.No.2.

4. The O.P. No. 3, though received the notice from the Fora, did not choose to appear in this case nor filed his counter version nor participated in the hearing, as such, we lost every opportunities for come to know whether the alleged mobile handset suffered from any manufacturing defects, as such, allegations of complainant remained unchallenged on his part.

5. Complainant has filed certain documents like retail invoice vide no. 193 dated 08.04.2015 and job sheet issued by O.P.No.3 vide work order no. 510007251693 dated 05.01.2016.  No documents filed by the O.Ps.

6. Heard from the complainant.  Perused the case records and material documents available therein. 

7. It is an evidentiary fact that the complainant has purchased one Lava mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing Model No. Lava Iris Alfa having IMEI No. 911402200974646 & No. 911402200974653 and paid Rs. 6,400/- vide retail invoice no. 193 dated 08.04.2015 alongwith warranty certificate issued by the O.P.No.1.  Complainant filed documents to that effect.  The allegations of complainant is that 9 months after its purchase, the alleged mobile showed some defects in its functioning for which he did not get its utility and in the month of January, 2016, the complainant reported the matter to the O.P.No.1 and narrated the defects and as per his advise, complainant deposited the mobile handset with the O.P.No.1 for its inspection.  It is also submitted that 20 days thereafter, complainant received the said mobile from the O.P.No.1 with a false belief that the defects were rectified. It is further alleged that after using the mobile for some days, he found the same problems alongwith some additional defects and on approach the O.P. No.1 replied that the mobile is having manufacturing defects.From the job sheet vide work order no. 510007251693 dated 05.01.2016, it is observed that being found defects in the alleged mobile handset, the O.P. No. 3 has marked the defect as “TP not working properly and Touch screen not working properly”,but regarding further additional defects in the alleged mobile, the O.Ps did not choose to adduce any evidence nor filed their counter to make any contradiction.Since O.Ps are absent throughout the proceeding and non submissions of their versions, make the allegations of complainant unrebuttal and unchallenged.In this connection, we have come across the verdicts of theHon’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”.Basing upon the above verdicts, we have no option to disbelieve the submissions of complainant.

8. We feel, the O.P.No.1 has removed the defects in the alleged handset through the O.P.No.3, who is the authorized service center set up by the O.P.No.2, but the O.P. No. 3 might not have not properly inspected the alleged mobile, for which, the previous defects of alleged mobile remain existed alongwith some additional defects, as such the complainant could not get the utility from the mobile handset for which he purchased the mobile.  Further it is settled law that the O.Ps are duty bound to provide their best services to their genuine customers, who with a hope to avail better service, purchases the mobile from them.  Hence, not providing better service to the complainant, the O.Ps have clearly proved the deficiency in service on their part. 

9. Further lying the said mobile handset for more than 2 & ½ years without any 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 non providing better service by the O.Ps to their valuable customer like 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. 2000/- and Rs. 1000/- towards compensation and costs 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 directed to refund the cost of the alleged mobile handset i.e. of Rs. 6,400/- and to pay Rs. 2000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of the communication of this order, failing which the cost of mobile handset shall carry interest @ 10 % per annum from 05.01.2016 till payment.  

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 8^th day of August, 2018. 

Issue free copies to the parties concerned.