Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: Sri S.K.Pattjoshi & Associates , Advocate, Bhawanipatna.

For the O.P 1: Sri S.K.Mishra & associate ,Advocate, Nabarangpur.

For the O.P 2: Not appeared.

For the O.P.3: Sri G.Pattnaik,Advocate,Bhawanipatna.

                                                JUDGMENT

1. This Complaint is filed against the Ops alleging deficiency of service for denial of replacement of good/TV which was damaged during warranty period.
2. The complainant has  prayed for an order  directing  the O.Ps to replace the damaged TV or in alternative pay the cost of the TV i.e  Rs.13,000/- and further prayed for an award of compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards harassment & mental agony with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- & further prayed for an award of Rs. 20,000/- as exemplary cost
3. The facts of the complaint in brief are that, the complainant has purchased one Samsung LED TV from O.P. No.3   for a consideration of Rs.13,500/-  on dt.02.05.2018 with warranty period of two years.  On 01.12.2018  when the complainant along with his family members were watching the TV, all of a sudden the inner electronics  item was burnt and the TV was completely damaged. The complainant brought to the notice of the OP No.3 and as per the advice of the OP No.3 the complainant lodged a complaint before the customer care, accordingly, the OP No.3 sent the product /TV to the product specialist who inspect the alleged product/TV and assured  that, TV will be replaced with new one as it is under the warranty period  but on 12.12.2018  the OP No.2 intimated the complainant and denied to replace the same saying  that , said TV got  damaged due to some external fire/heat source. Finding no other option the complainant filed this consumer complaint on dt. 19.02.2019 alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops.
4. To substantiate his claim the complainant has placed the Original warranty card&  original retail invoice of the purchased TV, original letter dt, 12.12.2018 issued from the OP.NO.2
5. On being notice, the Opposite Party No.1 appeared through their learned advocate and filed written version denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars.
6. The OP No.2 neither appeared nor filed written version.
7. The OP No.3 though appeared but failed to file their written version.
8.  It is submitted by the Op NO.1 that, the alleged goods/TV purchased by the complainant had one year warranty but not two years as claimed by the complainant   and the said TV was installed by the dealer/seller and not by the Company.
9. The OP No.2 through their letter dt. 12.12.2018 ( placed on the record by the complainant) denied the allegation that the LED TV was burnt   suddenly while the complainant was watching the said  TV. But it is not disputed that alleged TV got damaged within the period of warranty .
10. Learned counsel for the Op 3 submitted that, the complainant has not filed any expert opinion regarding the issue and in support of the allegation. The opposite party cannot be held liable in the facts & circumstances of this case .He has further submitted that,  the burden of proof is on the complainant to establish the case and hence the complaint is  not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.   
11. Perused the material on record. We have our thoughtful consideration to contents of the complaint petition & submission of the learned counsel of the parties.
12. After careful perusal of the case record, it is found that, the complainant has purchased a Samsung LED TV from O.P. No.3   for a consideration of Rs.13,500/-  on dt.02.05.2018 with warranty period of 12 month .  On 01.12.2018  the alleged TV got damaged for which the complainant  requested the technician of the Opposite Parties to repair of his defective LED TV but the OPs  failed to rectify the defects. The complainant stated that after  its purchase the technician of the Opposite Party installed the said TV  in his premises but  all of a sudden while the complainant and his family members were watching the TV it is burnt  and  accordingly  the complainant informed to the local dealer i.e. OP No.3 and as per the advice of the OP No.3 the complainant lodged complaint before the Op No.2  but the technician of OP No.3  failed to rectify the defects and assured to replace the same with a new and later the OP Company denied to replace with a ground that the said TV was burnt due to external fire.
13. The contents of letter dt, 12.12.2018 issued from the OP.NO.2 clearly proved the damaged of the TV during the warranty period as such onus lies on the OP.NO 2 to proved that said TV  burnt due to external fire/source  but not a single  evidence is adduced by the ops to proved that the alleged TV burnt due to external fire as such these contention of the OP.No. 2 is not acceptable.
14. The allegation of the complainant that, in spite of repeated requests the Opp.Party did not listen to the complainant and   the OPs failed to rectify the defects to restore its normal functioning for which the complainant suffered mental agony remain un challenge.
15. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence, the contents of which are corroborated with the averment of the complainant remain un-challenged/un-rebutted. By way of affidavit, the complaint has proved all his contentions .No counter affidavit is filed by the Ops.
16. It is found that, the complainant has purchased the LED TV from the op no 3 vide invoice no. PHA/GST/652 dt. 02/05/2018 paying Rs.13,500/-receiving warranty card of  12 month , for  his day to day use but  the TV  burnt on 01/12/2018 i.e within the warranty period as such it is the bounden duty of the OPs to   repaired or replaced the product with new one of same  but  the OPs failed to  provide proper service to the complainant. The Ops have neither repaired the alleged LED TV nor replaced with new one of same which amounts negligence &  deficiency in service on the part of the OPs certainly caused financial loss & mental agony to the complainant need to be compensated.
17. The OP 1/ manufacturer of the TV & OP No.3 /seller who introduced the product to the complainant assuring warranty of one year shall be  jointly liable to replace the alleged LED  TV and to pay compensation for the  financial loss & mental agony caused to  the complainant due to such negligence & deficient service on the part of the OPs .  The complainant approached this Commission taking assistance of an advocate in time must have incurred litigation cost need to be adequately compensated.
18.  Based on above discussion,  we are of the opinion that  a new   LED TV  of the same model with fresh warranty  is to be replaced to the complainant without charging any extra amount or in alternative refund  the cost of the TV i.e  Rs.13,000/- with interest,  so also the complainant is entitled for compensation for suffering /mental agony & further entitled for the  cost of litigation caused due to the negligence & deficient service of the Ops  . In the result, this complaint is allowed in part with the following directions-

  ORDER

The Opposite Party No.3 is directed to replace the  
alleged goods/LED TV with a new one of the same model with fresh warranty to the complainant without charging any extra amount or in alternative refund the sell price mount of Rs.13,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of its purchase i.e. 21.05.2018 till its payment  and to pay  litigation  cost of Rs.5000/-and after payment to the complainant the Opp.Party No.3 is at liberty to reimburse the said amount from the Opp.Party No.1 on his own cost .

  The Opposite Party is are   directed  to make compliance of the aforesaid Order within  four weeks  from the  date of  receipt  of this  order falling which the Opposite Party shall be liable to pay compensation of Rs. 500/- per day to the complainant till compliance of this order .

Pending application if any is also stands disposed off accordingly.

        Dictated and corrected by me.

         Sd/-        

President

I   agree.

     Sd/-             

   Member                                        

         Pronounced in open Commission today on this   1^st  day of March  2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

The judgment  be uploaded forthwith in the website of the Commission and  free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet  to treat the same as copy of the order received from this Commission

                         Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

                     Member                                           President