By L. Jyothikumar, Member:

            Petition is filed on 4-11-09.Complainant had purchased a Panasonic 29” Flat T.V. from the 2^nd opposite party on 6-8-2008.  Complainant had paid Rs.11720/- to the 2^nd opposite party.  After 10 months of purchase the T.V. became defective.  On 23-5-2009 the complainant had informed the defects to the opposite party-2.  Opposite paprty-2 informed the matter to opposite party-1 who is the authorised service centre of the T.V. set.  The Technician of the opposite party-1 was inspected the defective T.V. set supplied by the opposite party-2.  No steps was taken by the opposite party-1 to get it repaired.  The T.V. set purchased by the complainant, had a warranty of 12 months.  The complainant is alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.  The complainant was filed this complaint seeking relief from the opposite parties.

            Notice sent to the opposite parties was served.  The Oppositeparty-1 was filed version by denying the averments in the complaint.  Opposite party-2 did not appear before the Forum.  When the case was posted for the cross examination of the complainant both opposite parties were called absent and set exparte.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on complainant’s side.  The complainant is alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  The T.V. set purchased from the 2^nd opposite party, Bhima Traders after paying Rs.11720/- 12 months warranty certificate also was issued by the 2^nd opposite party.  The T.V. set became defective within 10 months of purchase.  The complainant approached the opposite party-1 which is the service centre of the T.V. set.  The Technician of the 1^st opposite party has inspected the defective T.V. No steps were taken by the opposite party-1 to get it repaired.  The opposite party did not take any steps to redress the grievance of the complainant.  From the evidence and the documents, Ext.A1 to A5 the complainant’s case is proved.  Complainant had sent a letter to the opposite parties with acknowledgement due which are marked as Ext.A2 and A3.  No reply was given to the Ext.A2.  In our opinion as there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complainant is entitled to get the T.V. repaired or  repair charge

            In the result the petition is allowed and the opposite party-1 is directed to make T.V. defect free or pay Rs.5000/- towards the repair charge to the complainant along with a cost of Rs.500/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Pronounced in the open court this the 31^st day of May 2010.

            SD/- PRESIDENT                   SD/- MEMBER           SD/- MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1.  Bill dt. 6-8-08 issued by O.P.-2 to the complainant.

A2.  Photocopy fo Lawyer notice dt. 19-10-09.

A3.  Photocopy of Acknowledgement.

A4.  Warranty card.

A5.  Postal receipts.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party.

            Nil

Witness examined for the complainant.

PW1.  Ajaykumar (Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party.

            None

                                                                        Sd/- President

                                    // True copy //

(Forwarded/By order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.