Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S.Panesar,President.

1. Sh. Rajesh Arora complainant has filed the present complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that complainant purchased one Micromax 50K233OUHD 124 cm (49) LED TV  having Invoice No. 71536 dated 17.10.2015 from opposite party No.1 by placing online order for Rs. 47018/- including taxes on 15.10.2015. The LED TV was delivered to the complainant on 24.10.2015 and the payment was made by the complainant through credit card. On the request of the complainant for installing LED, the engineer of the opposite party No.5 visited the house of the complainant on 29.10.2015. At the time of opening the box of LED, the concerned engineer namely  Sumit noticed that the penal of the LED was broken in transportation and entry in this regard was made on the job sheet dated 20.10.2015 with the remarks “Penal Broken in Transportation”. The said engineer also found that the said LED was having a manufacturing defect being having picture problem. As such the said engineer did not install the said LED  and the same was packed in the same box by the engineer. The complainant till date never used the said LED . The complainant immediately reported the matter to the opposite party No.1 online website, opposite party No.2, seller , opposite party No.3 manufacturing company of LED, opposite party No.4 i.e. courier company and opposite party No.5  i.e. authorized service  centre of opposite party No.3 . As such the complainant informed all the opposite parties on various occasions orally as well as in writing through e-mails about the abovesaid inherent manufacturing defect in the said LED alongwith broken of Penal of LED during transportation . The aforesaid act of the opposite parties in supply the defective inoperative LED and thereafter not responding to the requests of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs  vide instant complaint:-

1. Opposite parties be directed to replace the said defective LED with new one of the same make and model  with fresh warranty or in the alternative to refund the price of the LED i.e. Rs. 47,018/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of payment till realization.
2. Compensation of Rs. 40,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant alongwith adequate litigation expenses.

Hence, this complaint.

2. Despite  due service none put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties and as such they were  ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

3.       In his bid to prove his case Rajesh Arora, complainant made into the witness box as his own witness and tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A in support of the allegations made in the complaint alongwith bill Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2, copy of job sheet Ex.C-3, copies of e-mail Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-10, copy of photo of LED Ex.C-11, copy of complaint to the opposite party Ex.C-12, copies of e-mails Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-15 and closed his ex-parte evidence.

4.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

5.       From the perusal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant purchased one Micromax 50K233OUHD 124 CM LED TV  for Rs. 47,018/- vide invoice Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2. When the Engineer of the opposite party namely Sumit visited to install the LED on 29.10.2015,   he found  that the penal of LED was broken in transportation  and also was having a manufacturing defect. As such the said engineer did not install the LED and the same was packed in the box. The complainant reported the matter to the opposite parties, but to no avail. The complainant also made requests to the opposite parties through e-mails either to replace the LED or to refund the price of the same, copies whereof account for Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-10. But , however, the opposite parties did not redress the grievance of the complainant. The evidence adduced by the complainant,  in support of his case, has gone unrebutted on record because, despite due service, opposite parties did not opt to appear and contest the claim of the complainant and thereby impliedly admitted the allegations of the complaint in toto. As such, we hold that all the opposite parties  are liable for refund of the sale price of the LED in dispute to the tune of  Rs. 47,018/- jointly, severally & co-extensively. Besides that complainant is also entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 3000/- as compensation as well as litigation expenses of Rs. 2000/-. Opposite parties are given one month’s time for complying with the order ; failing which , amount awarded shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of receipt of copy of the order until full and final recovery. The complaint stands allowed accordingly. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 15.11.2016

/R/