A  Rajesh, President.

          The case of the complainants is as follows:

          The complainants wanted to purchase 29 “CTVs from the 1^st opposite party. On 08-03-2011 the complainants purchased two LG29 “CTVs, Model No. LG 29 FU3AG from the 1^st opposite party for Rs. 13,500/-each.  Assuring the complainants that the CTVs are of the specifications of 29”, the 1^st opposite party delivered 27 “ CTVs.  When the complaint was made to the 1^st opposite party, the 1^st opposite party directed the complainants to approach the 3^rd opposite party.  Accordingly the complainants highlighted their grievances by an e-mail to the 3^rd opposite party.  But there was no response.  The opposite parties gained undue advantage by collecting amount for  29” CTVs.  Thus the complainants are before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay damages of Rs. 50,000/- each and to refund the difference in value in respect of 27” CTV  and 29” CTV or replace with 29” CTVs.

          2. Version of the 3^rd opposite party.

          CTVs are sold by model number and not by inches.  As per standards of weights and measures (packaged commodities) Rules, CTVs are mentioned in centimeters and not in inches.  While purchasing the CTVs, the complainants  personally inspected the same, its working and after  being  satisfied purchased them.  It is the size of the picture tube and not the size of the actual screen on which the  picture can be seen, is  considered.  The total dicigonal dimension of all 29”colour picture tube television is 29 inches.  But the viewable minimum diagonal diamension of the picture tube may be a little loss say 27 inches. The  3^rd opposite party requests to dismiss the complaint.

          3. Despite service of notice from this Forum the 1^st  and 2^nd opposite parties opted to remain absent for their own reasons.  No oral evidence was adduced by the parties.  Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainants. Heard the complainants who appeared in parties-in-person and the counsel for the 3^rd opposite party.

          4. The points that arose for consideration are.

          i. Whether the complainants are entitled to get refund of the difference in price in respect of 27 “CTV and 29 CTV or get replacement with 29” CTVs.

          ii. Whether the complainants are entitled to get damages of Rs. 50,000/- each?

          5. Point No. i.  According to the complainant the demand made by them was for supply of 29” CTVs, and  paid value of 29” CTVs but  only 27” CTVs were delivered.  It is stated that the opposite parties gained undue advantage and the complainants sustained undue loss.  The complainants relied on a decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court reported in Union of India and Another V. Godrej GE Appliances and others  ILR 2008 (3) P 102.

          6. On the contrary the learned counsel for the 3^rd opposite party contended that it is the size of the picture tube and not the size of the actual screen on which the picture can be seen is  considered as the specification of the size.  The counsel relied on the decision rendered by the Hon.ble SCDRC Punjab in LG Electronics Industries Pvt. Ltd V. Ashok Doomra and Anr.  (FA No. 1551/2006 decided on 02-05-2007).

          7.  Admittedly the complainants purchased CTV-LG 29FU3AG from the 1^st opposite party which was manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party evidenced by Ext. A1 and A2 cash receipts.  Neither oral nor documentary evidence on record  to show that the 1^st opposite party has represented that the screen length of the CTV would be 29 inches.  It is pertinent to note that the complainants did not mount the box to prove their case or controvert the contentions of the 1^st opposite party.  As such  nothing is before us to substantiate the contentions raised by the complainant  except the complaint.

          8. The Hon’ble Punchab SCDRC in the above referred case held as follows:

          “After hearing  the counsel for the appellant and respondent in person, we are of the view that there is substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant.  Nothing has been brought on record to show that it was ever represented by the appellant that the actual screen length of the T.V  would be 29”.  No document or brochure has been brought to our notice by the respondent.  The only indications was on the cardboard  box in which the T.V. was packed that it was of 73 centimeters. 73 centimeters have admittedly to be measured diagonally and as per the measurement it is 72’5 centimeters.  The actual screen on which the picture can be seen is slightly less than the picture tube measurement in as much as slight portion of the picture tube is covered by the T.V. cabinet.  Giving margin of error as per the Standards of  Weight and Measure Ppackaged Commodities)  Rules, we are of the view that the screen could be taken to be of 73 centimeters.  It can not be said to be any   unfair trade practice as alleged by the respondent. However, we are of the view that it would be much better if the manufacturer of the  T.V. were to mention all these details which have been noticed in this Judgment in the brochure, the  instructions book of the T.V. as also on the cardboard box, so that the buyer of such a commodity is very clear in his mind  as to what he is buying.  On facts and circumstances of this case, we are unable to hold that there was any unfair trade practice”.   

          9. The Hon’ble High Court rendered the above decision (cited by the complainant) in a different context which is not applicable in the instant case.

          10. The sympathy of this Forum is with the complainants for their misunderstanding that the specifications of 29 inch is only of the picture tube and not the original screen of the CTV and for the reasons mentioned above we are only to dismiss the complaint.  Ordered accordingly.  Parties shall bear their own costs.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 24^th day of September 2011