1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 31.01.2020 he purchased one Canon printer from Opp. Party bearing Sl. No. KMAG83947 and paid Rs. 10,600/- vide invoice no. 15384 dated 31.01.2020 alongwith warranty certificate of 12 months.  It is alleged that soon after using for about 2 months, the said printer exhibited overheat in its body part and noise coming out from the inner part did not function properly, thus he contacted with the Opp. Party for its repair or replacement, whereas the Opp. Party kept the alleged printer several times, but the print out is not visible clearly and with other allegations he filed this case claiming the refund of costs of printer and Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs.

2. The Opp. Party though appeared in this case, but did not choose to file his counter in spite of repeated opportunities given to him, keeping in view of natural justice, however, he participated in the hearing.    

3. Complainant filed certain documents in his support whereas the Opp. Party did not choose file any documents.  Heard from the complainant only.  Perused the case record and material documents available therein.

4. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding purchase of the alleged printer by the complainant from the Opp. Party bearing Sl. No. KMAG83947 and paid Rs. 10,600/- vide invoice no. 15384 dated 31.01.2020 alongwith warranty certificate of 12 months.  The allegations of complainant is that soon after using for about 2 months, the said printer exhibited overheat in its body part and noise coming out from the inner part did not function properly, thus he contacted with the Opp. Party for its repair or replacement, whereas the Opp. Party kept the alleged printer several times, but the print out is not visible clearly.  The said version though challenged by the Opp. Party, but to make it contradict, Opp. Party did not choose to adduce any evidence, as such all the allegations of complainant 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.”  

5. However at the time of hearing, keeping in view of natural justice, as per our direction, complainant handed over the alleged printer to the Opp. Party for its repair.  Though the said printer was repaired by the Opp. Party, but the printouts taken from the alleged printer are visible clearly, hence we believe the version of complainant regarding the defects of printer, and we feel the alleged printer is having manufacturing defects in it. 

6. 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 Opp. Party to customer i.e. 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. 3,000/- 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 Opp. Partyis herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged printer i.e. Rs. 10,600/- to the complainant and also to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- for costs of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the cost of printer shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of purchase till payment.  Further the Opp. Party is at liberty to recover the amount paid by him to the complainant as per this order, from the concerned manufacturer, if he desires to do so.  Further the complainant is herewith directed to handover the alleged printer to the Opp. Party at the time of compliance of order.

        Pronounced in the open Court on this the 29^th day of June, 2021.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.