1. The complainant purchased one LG TV Set on 20.09.2014 at Rs. 53,800/- (Rupees fifty three thousand eight hundred) from OP 1 under loan scheme and the said loan was fully liquidated on 5^th August, 2015. But the said TV was suffering from manufacturing defect from the very inception. It was brought under the coverage of an AMC of OP 2 (LG Electronics) on 09.09.2016 and it was valid up to 25.09.2019. In between  09.09.2016 and 25.09.2019, the panel of the said TV became defective for which the replacement was made by the representative of OP 2 and OP 3 with an assurance that such problem would never recur. But subsequently on 01.09.2019 again the same problem came to surface. Necessary intimation was sent. The Engineer of OP 2 inspected the TV and tried to remove the defect; but in vain. One Debdyuti Ghosh working under OP-3 thereafter called the complainant and offered 35% cash-back and replacement. The complainant did not give in and filed this case on 04.11.2020 against (a) the seller of the T.V. namely; Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd (OP 1) (b) the manufacturer of the T.V. namely  LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (OP 2) and (c) the provider of AMC i.e. LG EI Ltd., Kolkata (OP 3) with prayer for repair or replacement of the old TV, compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- + Rs. 1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

2. The OP 1 and OP 2 entered appearance and contested the case by filing W/V separately. Both of them have prayed for dismissal of the case mainly on the ground that the claim of the complainant does not have any legal sanction.

3. In support of his case, the complainant has filed (a) Evidence on affidavit, (b) purchase receipt, (c) receipt under which the AMC of Rs. 13,260/- was paid by the complainant on 09.09.2016 for the TV in question and (d) Letter, dated 01.09.2016, 25.09.2019 etc. The documents filed by the complainant have not seriously been challenged by the other side. For being unchallenged, those documents appear to be most reliable in this case. It is transparent from those documents that the complainant purchased one TV on loan on 26.09.2014 and the said TV was brought under the coverage of AMC issued on 09.09.2016. It is also apparent that AMC granted by OP 2 remain enforce from 26.09.2016 to 25.09.2019 and as per complaint, the main problem the TV develops some defects on 1^st September, 2019, for which the engineer of OP 2 tried to make the same good, and failed. It is interesting to note after gap of 24 days, the AMC lost its validity.

4. The AMC charge was taken for the TV for the period from 09.09.2016 to 26.09.2019. But towards the end of that period the TV became defunct and was checked and repaired by the authorized person of OP 2.  It is not the case that complainant’s request for repairing the TV fell on deaf ears on 01.09.2019. It is in the complaint that thrice the engineer inspected the TV, the panel of the TV was found defective. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the OP 2/OP 3 who issued AMC skipped the call of the complainant or failed to take necessary steps. May be that the engineer who tried thrice to repair the 5-year old  TV failed to do so due to his incompetence. But that does not confer any right upon the complainant to get a new TV in place of his 5 years old one Apparently we do not find any fault on the part of the provider of AMC. But one thing we must admit that the engineer who was pressed in to service for removal of the defect from the old TV could not show his expertise and did not also ask the complainant in so many works to go for replacement of the panel for price. For such minor deficiency on his part the complainant may be awarded some compensation. Needless to say that a TV priced at Rs. 53,800/- in 2014  has sustained devaluation due to wear and tear over those years. Its present market value may not exceed Rs. 3,000/- / Rs. 4,000/-. Considering the present price of the TV and the nature of deficiency on the part of the OP  the amount of compensation may be assessed at Rs. 700/-. The complainant will also get Rs. 2,000/- on account of litigation cost.

5. The case is thus disposed off with the following direction :-

1. The OP 2 will pay Rs. 7,00/- (Rupees seven hundred only )  as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) as litigation cost totalling Rs.2700 /- (Rupees two thousand seven hundred only ) to the complainant within 45 days hence, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum.

Let a plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR.

Dictated and corrected by

 [HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das]
PRESIDENT