1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung LED 32 Inch TV from OP No.1 on 12.5.2015 and when the TV was opened for installation it was found by the Samsung Technician that the display of the TV is broken.  The fact was intimated to OP.1 who advised the complainant to deposit the TV with them and TV would be returned within 30 day after due repair.  The complainant deposited the TV with OP.1 but after expiry of 3 months, the complainant did not get back his TV and hence alleging defective goods, he filed this case against the Ops praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.22759.75 towards cost of the TV and to pay Rs.23, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 filed counter admitting the defect in the TV sold to the complainant on 12.5.15 as detected by OP.2.  It is contended that they have taken up the matter with Ops 2 & 3 and the Ops have assured to repair the TV free of cost.  Thus denying any fault on their part, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.  The Ops 2 & 3 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.

3.                     In the meanwhile, the complainant has filed an application stating that he has received the TV from the Ops in running condition and prayed for extended warranty for the period which he has not used the new TV of the Ops besides compensation.  We have heard the complainant.

4.                     It is seen that the complainant has purchased the TV on 12.5.2015 and after repair it was received back on 15.10.2015.  The complainant has not enjoyed the TV for 5 months soon after its purchase.  Hence the prayer for extension of warranty for 5 months of the complainant is genuine.  The Ops 2 & 3 are to be directed to grant the warranty for one year from 15.10.2015 as if the TV was sold to the complainant on 15.10.2015.  Further regarding prayer for compensation it was seen that the BSF authorities have sold the TV to the complainant.  The TV might have damaged either during transit or due to mishandling but the real cause of damage and place of occurrence could not be ascertained.  It is sure that the complainant has suffered due to damage of the TV but in our opinion it would not be proper to punish the defense sector of our Country without any concrete evidence.  In the above circumstances, we are not inclined to award any compensation and costs in favour of the complainant except extension of warranty.

5.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops 2 & 3 being jointly and severally liable are directed to count the warranty on the TV of the complainant from 15.10.2015 for one year and undertake the repairs of the TV during said period free of cost under warranty.   Parties are to be their own costs.

(to dict.)