A. Rajesh, President.<br /> <br /> The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:<br /> On 14-04-2007 the complainant purchased a 29 inch philips T.V. (Model 29 PT 2552) by exchanging his 25 inch BPL T.V. and paying Rs. 10,400/- from the 1st opposite party as per Ext. A1 retail invoice. A warranty card of 2nd opposite party was also given to the complainant on purchasing the T.V. Stickers were affixed on the T.V. showing it as of 29 inch size. In ext. A1 also the T.V.. was shown as of 29 inch size. Hence he had no doubt regarding the size of the T.V. But later, at home, he physically verified it by measuring and to his surprise he found that the T.V. was only of the size of 26.5 inches. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party and requested for replacement of the T.V. by a 29 inch Philips T.V. or in the alternative, return the value of the T.V. The 1st opposite party was not generous enough to accept the request of the complainant. Then he approached the 3rd opposite party and repeated the same request before him. He also turned down his request. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant caused to send Ext. A3 notice to the opposite parties calling upon them to comply with his request. An amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation also was demanded. When his requests were turned down by the opposite parties, as a last resort, he lodged a complaint before this Forum.<br /> <br /> 2. As usual, notice was sent to the opposite parties. Neither of these parties has cared to turn up in this Forum at least once. This goes to show that the opposite parties are unmindful of the consequences of the proceedings in this Forum. It is quite unfortunate, to say the least. <br /> <br /> 3.The complainant filed a proof affidavit and he was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A5 were marked. The counsel for the complainant was heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In our opinion the following points are to be addressed by us<br /> <br /> i. Whether the opposite parties committed unfair trade practice in the transaction or not?<br /> <br /> ii. Reliefs and costs.<br /> 5. Point No. 1. The deposition of the complainant goes to show that at the time of purchase, he intended to buy a T.V. of 29 inch size. It was in this frame of mind he paid. In Ext. A1 also the T.V. was shown as of 29 inch size. But when he physically verified it at home it proved to be only of 26.5 inch size. There is discrepancy in visible size of the picture tube also. Whereas it has been represented in Ext. A2 that the visible size diagonal of the picture tube is of 69 cm, in reality, the T.V.actually bought happened to be that of 67.5 c.m. It may also be noted that the specification given in Ext. A2 is regarding 29 inch size.<br /> <br /> 6. Aggrieved by the alleged unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties, the complainant issued Ext. A3 notice which has been received by the opposite parties as it is clear from the Ext. A4 and A5 series of documents. Unfortunately, the opposite parties turned a deaf ear to the notice. It is regretted that the same treatment has been given to the notice sent from this Forum.<br /> <br /> 7. As the averments made by the complainant are not controverted by the opposite parties even after sufficient opportunity was afforded to them, the inescapable conclusion one would reach is that what ever has been stated by the complainant is accepted by the opposite parties even without a murmur. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the transaction in question falls within the purview of the definition of unfair trade practice as provided in Sec. 2 Sub Section 1 clause r (1) (i). The text of the definition is extracted below.<br /> <br /> (r)” unfair trade practice” means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices namely:-<br /> <br /> (i) the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which-<br /> <br /> (i) falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model;<br /> <br /> 8. It is so evident that the transaction in question falls squarely within the ambit of the definition, making it not necessary any further explanation. Hence we find it not difficult to hold that the opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice in this case. Before parting with this case, it has to be mentioned that the indifferent attitude exhibited by the opposite parties has caused severe mental agony to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 9. Point No. ii. The complainant had undergone severe mental agony not due to the unfair trade practice but out of the rock-like attitude of the opposite parties. But in view of the complainant having enjoyed the benefits of the T.V he had purchased, we do not think it necessary to recompense further the agony and distress he had suffered.<br /> <br /> On the facts and circumstances of the case we allow the complaint and direct that<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant shall be supplied with a brand new 29 inch Philips CTV (Model 29PT 2552) by the 1st opposite party. <br /> <br /> 2. In the alternative the 1st opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 16,564/- which is the value of the commodity with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till realisation.<br /> <br /> 3. The complainant shall return to the 1st opposite party, the T.V. he had actually purchased on receiving either of the aforesaid relief.<br /> <br /> 4. Opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards cost to the complainant. It is directed that the amount of the cost shall be borne equally by the opposite parties. The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. <br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28th day of March 2008<br />