Presented by Miss. B.L. Dora, Member. <br /> In this case, the Complaint petition reflects that, as an Advocate by profession the Complainant has purchased one assembled computer including one Samsung monitor bearing model number KS17ARLGKMXTP and product serial number- AR17H9LPCO 8980H on Dt. 15/03/2008 from M/s Sibani Techonologies, Bargarh on paying of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only, includes the price of the monitor Rs. 4,500/-(Rupees four thousand five hundred)only, to make his professional work more easier and flexible.<br /> That the warranty period for the monitor is three years but after about three months a defect occurred in display in the monitor and the Complainant told about this to the Sibani Technologies, Bargarh.<br /> <br /> The Complainant has purchased a C.P.U. From the concerned Opposite Party and in his version the Opposite Party No.3(three) has challenged that the default is in the C.P.U., not in the monitor.<br /> <br /> On complain, the Opposite Party No.1(one) had advised the Complainant to make contract with the Samsung company for the display problem in the monitor. Accordingly the Complainant had done this over telephone and the Samsung company gave him his complain ID 8407654334 on dated 25/06/2008.<br /> <br /> The Samsung service center sent one Uttam Kumar Sahu on Dt. 30/06/2008 who desired to take the monitor to Sambalpur. The Complainant handed over the monitor to M/s Sibani Technologies, Bargarh on Dt. 31/06/2008 which was sent to Sambalpur Service center by the Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt. 02/07/2008 and was received by the Complainant on Dt. 09/07/2008 with the same defect and degraded picture quality.<br /> <br /> The Complainant informed the Opposite Party No.1(one) about the said cause on the same date and again on Dt.11/07/2008. Then on Dt. 15/07/2008 one Mr. Zahid Khan had visited the Complainant's residence and after verifying the monitor said that he will discuss with his senior technician about this problem and will inform the Complainant over phone but no result.<br /> <br /> When the Complainant made repeated complain about this problem, the Samsung Service Center sent two technicians who checked and said that the monitor has to be replaced. Then after also the concerned service center had not responded all the attempts made by the Complainant to solve the problems arising out from the computer.<br /> <br /> On being harassed by this, the Complainant at last send a pleader notice to the Opposite Parties for replacement of the monitor.<br /> <br /> By this deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has suffered mentally, physically and financially. This makes hindrances in his legal profession to do his professional work like drafting, printing, finding of various decisions of High courts and Apex Court.<br /> <br /> So for this reason, the prayer of the Complainant is that, the Opposite parties should be directed to replace the monitor and pay a sum of Rs. 35,000/-(Rupees thirty five thousand)only towards mental agony and financial loss suffered by him. In the alternative if it held that there is defect in C.P.U., the Opposite Party No.1(one) be asked to replace the C.P.U. Or to compensate the Complainant as prayed above.<br /> <br /> Perused the documents and heard from the counsel and gone through the record, here both the parties agrees that there is some display problem in the monitor, that occurs either for defect in the monitor or for the C.P.U. The Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) set ex-parte in this case. The Opposite Party No.3(three) simply stated in his version that he has received the complaint on Dt. 25/06/2008 and checked the monitor through his technicians who found no problem in the monitor. But it is also fact that the monitor has taken to the service center and if there is no problem in the monitor is observed, Onus goes on the Opposite Party No.3(three) to prove that the monitor is O.K. in place of desire to refund money to his customer. But the Opposite Party No.3(three) has failed to prove this.<br /> <br /> The customer is just like God for the trader and it is the for most duty of the seller or service provider to give proper service to it's consumers. The defect occurred in the computer just after three months of purchase and the monitor was returned back by the Opposite Parties with the same defect is negligence in duty and deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties towards it's consumer. Hence, the Complaint petition is allowed and ordered.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to refund the price of the computer i.e. Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only with interest of 9%(nine percent) per annum from the date of purchase i.e. Dt. 15/03/2008 to till the date of Order, Rs. 6,000/-(Rupees six thousand)only compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation within thirty days from the date of Order, failing which the total amount awarded shall carry 18%(eighteen percent) per annum till realization.<br /> <br /> The case is disposed of.