DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :  JAJPUR : ODISHA.

       Presents:-  1.    Smt. Susmita Mishra           President,

                          2.  Sri Bibekananda Das           Member (I/c).

                                      Dated the 22^nd day of December 2022.

Consumer Complaint  No.  62 / 2020..

Binod Behera, S/o:- Narattam Behera,

Kar House, Modi Care Lane, At/Po:- Dala (Jajpur Road),

P.S:- Jajpur Road, Dist:- Jajpur.                                 .  .  .  .  Complainant.

                            Versus.

1. Kailash Chandra Patra, Manager, M/s Patra Electronics,

          Charda By-pass Jajpur Road,Po/P.S:- Jajpur Road, Dist:- Jajpur.

2. Sailendra Singh Sidhu, LG Care Star Services,

           At:- Dharmasala, Po:- Dala, P.S:- Jajpur Road,Dist:- Jajpur.

3. Amit Kumar Das, LG Electronics Indis Pvt. Ltd.

           Head Branch Service Manager, Odisha,

           At:- Nageswar Tangi, Old Town Bhubaneswar,

            P.S:- Old Town,Dist:- Khurda, Pin-751014.

     4.   Deepak Kumar Mohanty, Branch Service Manager, Odisha,

          At:- Nageswar Tangi, Old Town Bhubaneswar,

         P.S:- Old Town, Dist:- Khurda, Pin-751014.

    5.     L.G. Electronics Pvt. Ltd. India, Represented  through it’s

           Managing Director, Mr. Kim Ki Win Corporate Office,

            Plot No. 51, Udyog Bihar  Surajpur, Kisna Road, Greaternoida,

           Uttar Pradesh, India, Pin-201306.                 .  .  .  .  Opp. Parties.                           

                              Counsels appeared for the parties.    

For the Complainant        :-      Sri Pravat Kumar Pati,  Advocate,

For the O.P. No. 1            :-       In person.

For O.P. No. 2,3,4 & 5       :-      Sri S.K. Mohanty, Advocate & Associates.

Date of filing of Complaint   :-     26.08.2020.

Date of Hearing               :-       30.09.2022.

Date of Oder                    :-       22.12.2022.

MRS. SUSMITA MISHRA, PRESIDENT :-

          The C.C. No.62/2020 is taken up today for order.  The complainant in this case, Binod Behera @ Binod Bihari Behera, has filed this consumer complaint case U/s 35 of the C.P. Act, 2019 seeking the following reliefs :

       “Direct the LG Electronics Pvt. Ltd. India to pay the amount  Rs. 2,84,000/- towards damage & cost, or to replace a new T.V. Set.”

          In the present dispute the complainant alleges deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practices against the O.Ps due to selling a defective L.G. LED T.V. through misleading advertisement.

Brief facts of the case :- 

          Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant had purchased 55 inch LG T.V. Set Model No. 55UH650T containing two years warranty period from O.P. No.1 namely, M/s Patra Electronics, Jajpur Road, Dist. Jajpur, Odisha by paying advance amount vide their advance Invoice No. 441 on dt. 28.10.2016 through ICICI Bank Cheque No.486380/dt. 28.10.2016 of amounting to Rs.1,14,000/- (Rupees one lakh fourteen thousand) only & Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) by cash.  The O.P. No. 1 had not delivered the T.V. Set on the committed date & delayed by stating that the above said Model is not available in his Jajpur Road Showroom and answered that deliver the same from other place in time.  The O.P. No.1 delivered the said T.V. to wife of the Complainant after 22 days i.e. on 22.11.2016 and affix delivered stamp as advance Invoice No. 441, dt. 28.10.2016 but no fresh invoice was issued to the Complainant on 22.11.2016.  After delivery of the T.V. Set no signed copy of warranty card submitted to the Complainant by the O.P. No.1.  But they assured the Complainant not to worry about the warranty card, they will replace the T.V. Set if any problem arises at any time as LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. had provision of buy back benefit and replacement benefit for this model of T.V. Set.  For the above reason believed by the Complainant and he purchased two T.V. Set and received the signed copy of warranty card, by the authorized dealer of M/s Patro Electronics (O.P. No.1).  But the T.V. Set started blinking colour fade and abruptly stops just after the 13 month of the purchase.  The complainant had visited to O.P. No.2, the LG Authorized Service Center (namely LG Star Service) in Jajpur Road for complain requesting to solve the problem.  But the O.P. No.3 misguided the Complainant several times in different ways like not to raise online complain etc.  In the mean time, 8-9 months was passed away without visiting to complainant’s house by the O.P. NO. 2.  Due to the above negligence by the O.P. No.2, the warranty period of the T.V. Set had expired on February, 2019.  On 23.02.2019, the complainant raised online complain when the T.V. Set fully disabled and stopped working and O.P. No.2  send a non-competent staff for repairing the T.V. to the complainant’s house.  After repeated visit, the staff of O.P. No.2 told that the power board of the T.V. Set was not working.   After request of the complainant for a new power board, the Star Service Center and installed the defective power board in several times from LG Store which causes the same problem in the T.V. Set.

          On 12.03.2019, the T.V. Set of the Complainant fully stopped working after a few month of replacement of power board after paid
Rs. 3,778.36   vide Invoice No 01753/ dt. 12.03.2019 to the L.G. Care, Star Service.

          Again on 17.10.2019, the complainant raised online complain for the solution but no solution from the side of the O.Ps.  The O.P. Company close the complain only by giving remarks the T.V. Set had damaged and replacement cost for the T.V. Set/ Panel of Rs. 30,000/- as not paid by the customer/ complainant.

          So the complainant had cheated by L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. by supplying one manufacturing defective T.V. Set after several request to replace the T.V. Set.  The complainant had approached Jajpur Road Police Station for a cheating case against L.G. Electronics Pvt. Ltd.  LG Care (Star Service) the  Proprietor, O.P. No.2 assured several times to replace the two defective T.V. Set, but in vain from the side of O.P. No.2, 3 & 4 again and again.

          Hence, finding no other alternative the complainant had filed a consumer complaint against the O.Ps due to their deficiency in service before this District Consumer Commission, Jajpur.

2)       The O.P. No. 1 namely Sri Kailash Chandra Patra, M/s Patro Electronics resisted complaint and filed his separate written version on dt. 24.09.2020 and submitted that the complaint case is not maintainable as there is no grievance/ prayer against this O.P. No.1, so as to attract the ingredients of deficiency of service U/s C.P. Act, 2019.  It is also submitted that the complainant was well aware of the fact that 55” L.G. T.V. was not at the show- room of the O.P. No. 1.  After request of the complainant to O.P. No.1 to arrange the said T.V. and subsequently after receiving the same from the company, the same T.V. Set was delivered to the complainant.  It is further submitted that there is no provision of buy back benefit and replacement for 55” LED T.V. without warranty card.  It is further submitted by the O.P. No. 1 that he is a dealer only and not the after sales provider.  So, O.P. No. 1 has no role to play for the grievance raised by the complainant.  O.P. No.1 is also submitted that from the averments made in Para-3 & 4 by the complainant it is reveals that the company rectified the defects in the T.V. Set.  The   O.P. No. 1 stating in his written version that he is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to this dispute.  So the complaint case is not maintainable against the O.P. No.1 and as such the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3)       O.P. No. 2 namely, (Authorized Service Centre) and O.P. No. 3, 4 & 5 namely (L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.) filed their preliminary objection through their learned Advocate Sri Subhendra Kumar Mohanty & Associates on dt. 13.10.2020 and contested the complaint.  It has been stated by the O.P. No. 2 to 5 that the alleged complaint is governed by the limited and agreed terms of contract of warranty for which relief’s claimed beyond said terms & conditions is not maintainable.  It is submitted by the O.P. No. 2 to 5 that all the T.V. of LG offered with one year warranty.

          It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased the alleged T.V. on dt.28.10.2016.  It is submitted that the alleged T.V. was offered with one year warranty and within the warranty period no complaint lodged by the complainant.  It is the admitted fact by the O.P. No. 2 to 5 that the complainant availed service on 12.03.2019.  It is submitted that the complaint is not based on any technical advice or Expert’s Report and same does not fulfill the ingredients of Sections 38 & 39 of the C.P. Act, 2019. 

          It is denied by the O.P. No.2 to 5 with regard to assurance for replacement of T.V. in case of any defect detected in terms of warranty and buyback offer to the complainant.  It is admitted by the O.P. No.2 to 5 that the detection of defect just after 13 months of the purchase of the said T.V. Set.  Again it is admitted by the O.P. No. 2 to 5 that on 17.10.2019 the complainant had lodged online complaint for which estimate for service provided by service center on that date.  It is submitted that the complainant with regard to cheating by the manufacturer, non-attendance of complaints, closing complaints without offering services, offer made by O.P. No. 2 for replacement of two defective T.V., non-availability spare parts etc are disputed and denied by the O.P. No.2 to 5.  The report of the O.P. No.2 & 3 established that alleged T.V. is not having any manufacturing defects.  It is admitted by the O.P. No. 2 to 5, on inspection by technical person it is detected that due to physical damage at user end, line is appearing on the panel of the T.V. which is a paid-service but denied by the complainant.  It is admitted by the O.P. No.2 & 3 that the complainant had lodged on F.I.R. at Jajpur Road Police Station and send a legal notice to the O.Ps.  It is submitted that this complaint case is not a case of manufacturing defect in T.V. within warranty period or deficiency in service or adopting any unfair trade practice.

          Thus, the complainant filed this consumer case alleging the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice or cheating due to manufacturing defect on the T.V. Set (LG LED T.V. Model No. 55 UH650T).

          The O.P. No.1 after appearance in the case filed his written version and the O.P. No.2 to 5 also filed their written version through their authorized representative/advocate.  The contesting O.Ps challenged the complaint on complaint maintainability, period of limitation, cheating, fraud etc. are not covered under the C.P. Act, 2019.  Further reply of the O.P. No. 2 to 5 is that they are not deficient in their service.

          After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant & O.Ps, on perusal of the complaint, written version of the O.P. No.1 & 2 to 5 written arguments by both the parties, and documents available in record filed by the complainant & O.P. No. 2 to 5, the following issues are framed:-

ISSUES :-

1. Whether the complainant is “consumer” under the C.P. Act, 2019 ?
2. Whether the consumer complaint has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation ?
3. Whether this complaint case is maintainable or not on the point of view is that of a complicated question of facts which cannot be adjudicated under C.A. Act, 2019 raised by the O.P. No.2 to 5 ?
4. Whether the O.Ps are deficient in providing its services to the complainant ?
5. What relief the complainant is entitled to get ?

Issue No. 1 : (Consumer)

          A perusal of the record shows that the complainant bought one LG T.V Set Model No. 55UH650T from the O.P. No. 1 dealer which had been manufactured by the O.P. No. 3 to 5 by paying advance amount of                Rs. 1,14,000/- (Rupees one lakh fourteen thousand) only through ICICI Bank Cheque No. 486380/ dt.28.10.2016 Plus Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only in Cash vide their Advance Invoice No. 441 on dt. 28.10.2016.  The T.V. carried warranty of 2 years.

          Thus, the complainant will fall within the definition of “Consumer” under Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  The complainant is a Consumer U/s 2 (42) of the C.P. Act, 2019 where the O.Ps rendered services to the complainant relating to ‘Entertainment’.  Also allegation points towards ingredients of ‘deficiency in service’ within the meaning of Sec. 2 (11), Sec. 2 (42) & of ‘Unfair trade practice’ within the meaning of Section 2 (47), & ‘Misleading Advertisement’ within the meaning of Secs. 2 (1) & (28) of the Act, 2019.

          Thus, the issue is answered in favour of the complainant.

  Issue No. 2 : (Limitation)

          The O.P. No. 2 to 5 in their written version raised the objection that consumer complaint is barred by limitation.  It is submitted by the above O.Ps that all the televisions of LG make are offered with one year warranty period.  In the present complaint alleged T.V. was admittedly purchased on 28.10.2016 and one year warranty on it expires on 28.10.2017.  Admittedly no complaint lodged during 1^st year warranty in force.  It is not filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action.  Hence, consumer complaint is not tenable as barred by limitation.

          We do not find any substance in the defense on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 to 5.  The alleged T.V. LG LED Model No. 55UH650T purchased on 28.10.2016 vide advance invoice where complainant had made the advance payment of Rs.1,000/- in cash and remaining amount vide ICICI Bank Cheque No.486380, dt.28.10.2016 for Rs. 1,14,000/- which cleared on 01.11.2016 to O.P. No. 1 M/s Patro Electronics, Jajpur Road, Jajpur.  The warranty card provided by the O.P. No. 1 is clearly visible as date of purchase is 28.11.2016.  So that the delivery of the T.V. Set to complainant is 22.11.2016 (xerox copy attached).  It is shown by the complainant through a three pages Advertisement Catalogue Pamphlet on LG T.V. during the Durga Puja Vacation (1^st Sep, 2016 to 15^th Nov, 2016), the alleged model is totally two years warranty (Xerox copy attached).  Complainant raised his complaint against the defective LG LED T.V. from dt. 22.02.2017 vide Complaint No. RNP 170222014978 TO dt. 14.11.2019 vide Complain No. RNP200212018333.  It is a continuous process.  LG Care has took Rs. 3,778=36/- vide their Invoice No. 01753 dt. 12.03.2019 from the petitioner but T.V. Set of the petitioner fully stopped working after a few month of the replacement of power board.  The job sheet provided by the O.P. No. 2 to 5 on 17.10.2019 vide Job No. RNP 191017066438, reflected that “Consumer have panel problem in the set refuse to repair due to high part value  estimate given to the customer price Rs. 28,998/-“ but there is not mentioned as physical damage at used end, having no signature etc. is totally false as evidence (xerox copy attached).  Claim of deficiency in service due to defective T.V. has provided continuous cause of action, so, claim of complainant is based on continuous cause of action.  Till today inspite of receiving complaint to solve the problem and assurance therein (Warranty card and by the O.Ps version) and promise, O.Ps failed to provide proper service to the complainant.

          Therefore, consumer complaint cannot be said to be barred by limitation.  It is filed well within the limitation U/s 69 of the C.P. Act, 2019 and as such it is maintainable on question is ‘Limitation’.

Issue No. 3 : (Maintainability)

          On maintainability, the contention of O.P. No. 2 to 5 is that the complaint involved complicated question of facts which cannot be adjudicated in a summary proceeding under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

          Hon’ble Supreme Court in CCI Chambers Coop. HSG Society Ltd.  Vrs. Development Credit Bank Ltd., Appeal (Civil) 7228 of 2001 observed as follows:

          “It cannot be denied that Fora at the National level, the State level and at the District level have been constituted under the Act with the avowed object of providing summary and speedy remedy in conformity with the principle of natural justice, taking care of such grievances as are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Fora established under the Act.  These Fora have been established and conferred with the jurisdiction in addition to the conventional courts.  The principal object sought to be achieved by establishing such Fora is to relieve the conventional courts of their burden which is ever increasing with the mounting arrears and whereat the disposal is delayed because of the technicalities.  Merely because recording of evidence is required, or some question of fact and law arise which would need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for shutting the doors of any Forum under the Act to the person aggrieved”.

          From the above citation, it is clear that this Commission is competent to adjudicate the complaint filed for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and for misleading advertisement.

          The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No. 4 : (Deficiency in service, etc.)

          Having discussed the preliminary objections on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 to 5, the question of consideration before us is whether the O.Ps are actually deficient in providing its services to the complainant or not.

          The expression “Deficiency in service” has been dealt with the Section 2 (11) of the C.P. Act, 2019. [Ref. in the case by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anifur Rahman Khan and ors. Vrs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd and ors. Reported at 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 544.

          The complainant has clarify earlier that Invoice is advance invoice, where the complainant had made the advance payment of Rs.1,000/- in cash and rest amount vide ICICI Bank Cheque No. 486360/dt.28.10.2016 for Rs.1,14,000/- which is cleared on dt.01.11.2016 to O.P. No.1-M/s Patro Electronics, Jajpur Road, Jajpur.

          The O.P. No.2 to 5 submitted their documents like Warranty Card, Job-Sheet vide No. RNA161102015718/dt.02.11.2016 & Job-sheet vide No. RNP191017066438/Ddt.17.10.2019.  In the Warranty card it is clearly visible that it is 12 months warranty in LG LED/LCD/PDP/OLED T.V. & the purchased date mentioned by M/s Patro Electronics on dt.22.11.2022 & the delivery of the T.V. Set to complainant is also on dt.22.11.2022.

          As per Para-4 of the O.P.No.1 which is clearly indicate that complainant has requested the Manager of O.P.No.1 to arrange this T.V. Set 55UH650T, as this model was not available in their showroom. The O.P.No.1 delivered the said T.V. Set after they received it from the Company concern to the complainant on 22.11.2016.  Complainant has purchased the Model LG LED 55UH650T T.V. Set & paid Rs. 1,15,000/- for this model. As per the documents like Job sheet / dated on 02.11.2016 & 17.10.2019 vide Job No. RNA1611020015718 & RNA191017066438 mentioned Model No. 55UH650T.ATR. Complainant strongly raised in his written argument that he never raised any complain on 01.11.2016 or 02.11.2016.  The above model are not matched with complainant’s model.  In the above mentioned Job-sheet on d t.17.10.2019- there is no such word mentioned as physical damaged at use end.

          The complainant stating in his complaint petition, written argument   as well as in objection to written short notes by the O.P.No.1 to 5 is that L.G. Care Centre deliberately installed a different power board belongs to another T.V. in the complainant’s T.V. So the said T.V. was got totally damaged just after two months of affixing the power board on the alleged defective T.V. vide Tax Invoice No.01753/dt.12.03.2019.

          As per the Printing Advertisement on the shape of Catalogue during the “Durga Puja Maha Offers” from 1^st September, 2016 to 15^th November, 2016, the alleged T.V. Model No. 55UH650T shows that 2 years warranty period with other free gifts items and also affixed a 2 years warranty sticker on the said T.V. of the complainant which is purchased from the O.P.No.1.  But with malafide intention, providing a one year warranty card with T.V. Set toolkit is completely reverse to the customer’s point of view by the O.Ps, which amounts to unfair trade practice through misleading advertisement.

          In this regard we may reproduced here for ready reference case laws with regard to “Warranty”, “Advertisement” & “Misleading advertisement”, as follows:

1. E.J. Belie Vs. Smt. Kamalaman Selvaraj, 1999 (I) CPR 374 (T.N.) :-

“Where the guarantee period was already over, the Job card could not be issued by the Appellant as T.V. Set had to be taken to service centre”

2. Rose Mary Chakrapani Vs. Santosh Agency 1994 (I) CPR 42 (43) W.B.:-

“The T.V. got defects and the complainant was lodged complaint within the validity of the guarantee period, that was definitely due to unfair trade practice and opted by the Manufacture and selling agency, therefore, the O.Ps/ Respondents must replace the picture tube and also repair the T.V. in order.”

3. Optonica Kalyani Sharp India Ltd. Vs. Gopal Lakhotca, III (2003) CPJ 435 (A.P.) :-

x x x xx x x x x x x x

Warranty could not effect the statutory rights of seeking relief against the defective goods. Truth of advertisement must be proved.

x x x xx x x x x x x x

“Hence, unfair trade practices had been proved.  O.P. was liable to refund the cost of T.V. with interest along with compensation and directed to discontinue such advertisement.” 

4.  A.C. Raha Vs. Voltas Ltd., III (1995) C.P.J. 314 :-

“Two air-conditioners manufactured by the Blue Star purchased by Rural development Agency were found to be defective. They carried a warranty of five years. There was delay of six months in replacing the defective machines. There was harassment to the complainants and they remained deprived of the use of these machines.

The complainants were held entitled to 18% per annum interest for six months on the purchase of the two air-conditioners, i.e. Rs.54,843.55 by wayof compensation & Rs.1,000/- by way of costs.”

Moreover, there is not Job Executor’s Signature and Customer’s Signature in the Job Sheet submitted before this Commission with their written objection filed by the O.P.No.2 to 5 on dt.13.12.2020. [Xerox copy of Job-sheet attached]. The complainant also went to Jajpur Road Police Station for a solution, the O.P.No.2 agreed for a settlement the issue by replacing the defective T.V. Set with a new T.V. Set. For that reason, the O.P.No.2 need a written application from the complainant and the complainant handed over to him the hard copy and forwarded the soft copy to the O.P.No.2 on dt.18.11.2019.Due to mutual agreement by both parties, the complainant agreed to keep his complain in Police Station Diary No.12 on dt.10.02.2020.After that, the O.P.No.2 handed over one Portable LG T.V. old model to Complainant to continue serials in the T.V. Set without break till the new LED T.V. arranged for replacement.But the O.P.No.2 never fulfilled his promise to hand over a New LED T.V. Set to the Complainant, which amounts to the alleged T.V. is one defective.As a result, it amounts to unfair trade practice & deficiency in service by the O.Ps.

As per the records, documents of the complainant & O.P.No.2 to 5 and whatsapp messages, it is proved by the complainant that he had purchased this T.V. Model No.55UH650T Set on good faith & looking into the superior brand value of L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. during Festival Season.So, O.Ps warranty card for one year claim is not proved.Moreover, the two major costly components of the alleged T.V. Set are T.V. Panel and Displayer of the T.V. has contained 11.42 years life-span for 4K Series T.V.

False & misleading advertisements are most vociferous.Such advertising is necessarily vulnerable.Where the major purpose of a company advertising falsely and misleading the customers, is to attract members of the public (i.e. Consumers/ Customers) towards buying a particular product, where it is fairly straight forwards that the methods employed in this process have become increasingly complex.From the economic point of view, erroneous amounts are spent on the false & misleading advertisements.There is a great distinction between a false Advertisement & Misleading Advertisement.A false advertisement represent the quality of a goods which it does not possess, whereas a misleading advertisement hides some contents & adds other contents which misleads the consumer.

In our view that, any advertisement, whether it is on printed form or on electronic media form, once it is published on broad casted or on television telecasted where so many assurance put-forth by any company or manufacturer company or by dealer or by marketing partners of any such companies will came under such obligation to carry forward the same assurance throughout the complete tenure of the same advertisement.So, no such company or manufacturer or the dealer, sub-dealer, etc. cannot withdraw their own obligation towards the Customers/Consumers so far as “Service” is concern or ‘Warranty’ is for consideration.Company or manufacturer or dealers etc. are not denied such advertisement once it is circulated in time as a whole.

Because, the first category of unfair trade practice has been laid down in clause (i) of Section 2 (47) which relates to the practice of making false or misleading Representation.The term ‘Misleading’ means capable of leading into error.There is an obligation on the seller that if he advertises or otherwise represents, he must speak the truth.This obligation also requires that representation must avoid half-truth. (Sachar Committee Report (1978) PP, 262-63.The important criterion, therefore, is to ascertain that what impression is likely to be created by the representation/ statement upon the consumers.

Therefore, in the present case, the complainant stating that within the warranty period the alleged T.V. started defects in various ways and repeated requested to O.P.No.1 & 2 to replace the T.V., but in vain and the O.P. No.2 to 5 had failed to proved their case that there is no complaint filed by the complainant regarding the defective T.V. within the one year warranty.

Hence, the O.P.No.1 and the O.P.No.2 to 5 has not provided the proper service to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice through misleading advertisement.An advertisement is misleading if it involves false, misleading or deceptive information or description of a product or service.The advertisement may also be considered as misleading if important information is deliberately concealed from the consumers.An advertisement which makes a representation (express or implied) by the manufacturer or seller or dealer or service provider constituting an unfair trade practice will also be considered misleading.An advertisement which gives false guarantee or is likely to mislead the consumers as to the nature, substance, quantity or quality of a product or service will also fall within the ambit of misleading advertisement U/s 2 (28) of the C.P. Act, 2019.

ISSUE NO. 5 (RELIEF):-

On perusal of the record shows that complainant bought one LG LED T.V. Model No. 55UH650T on advance payment through ICICI Bank Cheque No. 486380/dt.28.10.2016 and cleared on 01.11.2016.The O.P. No.1 delivered the said T.V. on dt.22.11.2016.The T.V. carried warranty for 2 years as per advertisement on the occasion of ‘Maha Durgapuja Offer’ and as per the Sticker affixed on the alleged T.V. of the complainant. But the said alleged T.V. was manufacturing defects had been noticed in the T.V. frequently.According to the complainant T.V. repeatedly became non- functional.The O.P. No.2- (Authorized Service Centre) charged Rs.3,778.36/- vide Tax Invoice No. 01753/dt.12.03.2019.Before that the complainant frequently requested to solve the problem on T.V. Set, but the O.Ps avoided every time and intentionally close the online complaint of the complainant.It is still lying unrepaired & non-functional when the complainant filed this complaint. The complainant was filed complaint petition on 26.08.2020, delaying it further could compromise the end of justice. Rabinarayan Sahu Vs. Regional Manager, Uptron India Ltd., II (2001) C.P.J. 472 :-

“It was held that the manufacturer, the dealer & the service centre were all jointly and severally liable to satisfy the complainant’s claim for compensation.”

Urja Vs. Jayshriben Yogesh Kumar Desai I (1996) CPJ 372 (Gujarat)

As the O.Ps are deficient in service & unfair trade practice through misleading advertisement to the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant is entitled for relief.

O R D E R.

For the above facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the O.Ps. failed to rectify or replace the alleged defected T.V. of the complainant, hence deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. are proved consideringthat T.V. was brought in 2016 and we are now in 2022, as a result the complainant is allowed in contest. Hence these O.Ps. are jointly and severally liableto compensate the loss and damage cause to the complainant for deficiency in service.

Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum Rs.1,15,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifteen thousand) only for the cost of the alleged T.V along with an interest @ 4% P.A on the said price from the date of filing of this complaint, till today, Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupeesone lakh) only towards the mental agony and harassment and Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only towards the cost of the litigation to the complainant. The total decreed amount shall be paid to the complainant by these O.Ps within 30 days from the date of received of the order copy.

In Case the O.Ps fail to pay the amount within 30 days then the amount will carry an interest @ 12% P.A till payment. It is also directed the complainant to submit the said old T.V as well as the alleged T.V before this Commission, after received the above amount from the O.Ps and the same T.V will be collect by the O.Ps within seven days from the date of submission of said T.V.

Order pronounced in the open Commission on this the 22^nd day of December 2022

Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.