Complainant Janak Raj vide the present complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short the Act) for issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite parties  to repair or replace change his LED and opposite party no.2 be directed to refund Rs.4413/- which was charged illegally from him. Opposite party no.2 be also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Samsung LED 40” for Rs.43,000/- on 24.06.2013 Model Serial No.1411614628364 on 21.03.2014 from the opposite party no.1 who is authorized dealer and distributor of the Samsung Products and opposite party no.1 issued a Invoice vide No.3417 dated 24.06.2013. Thus he is consumer of the opposite party. He has further pleaded that at the time of purchase of the product the opposite party no.1 assured him about the excellent working of their product and gave oral warranty of one lakh working hour. It was also assured that any defect during their period will be repaired free of costs or in case of need the product will be replaced. To his utter surprise the LED stopped working completely in December 2014.  He lodged a complaint to the opposite party no.1 regarding the stoppage of complete working of the LED, who referred the complaint to the opposite party no.2 who is the authorized service centre of Samsung Co. The mechanic of the service centre visited his house and told him that one part needs to be changed and he will have to deposit the price of the defective part plus labour charges first of all. He told him that he was assured and given warranty of this product for one Lakh working hours by the authorized dealer at the time of purchase of the LED. He asked to the dealer and he flatly refused to make any repair free of cost. Under duress he was forced to pay Rs.4413/- to the opposite party no.2 and only then the repair of the LED was conducted. LED was not working the very next day of the repairing. The picture from the LED had completely gone. He again lodged a complaint with the opposite parties. This time he was told that the picture tube of the LED needs to be changed and it is not repairable. He was asked to deposit Rs.20,000/- this time. He asked the authorized dealer i.e. opposite party no.1 that he was assured at the time of purchase about the excellent working of the Samsung product and he was told that in case of any complaint, he will be given new LED for that but the opposite party no.1 flatly refused to oblige him.  Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

 3.      Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written version by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the period of Warranty of LED was one year from the date of purchase. There is no complaint from the complainant within the warranty period. On merits, it was submitted that warranty period was one year only from the date of purchase. The product belongs to SAMSUNG India Limited, who is manufacturer of the product. The complainant has not made party to the Company the services of the Company is given by the authorized Service Centre. Whenever the complainant asked for any service, he is referred to Service Centre. The warranty period expired on 24.6.2014. It was never agreed by the opposite party no.1 that the LED will be replaced. It has further submitted that the complainant complained for minor defects in LED in December 2014 and his complaint was sent to Service Centre i.e. opposite party no.2 the opposite party no.2 is under the direct control of the Company and of the opposite party no.1 If the product is not within the warranty then the service Centre is ought to take service charges and cost of part which is required to be replaced. The opposite party no.1 has no knowledge if the complainant has paid any amount to the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 is independent and is under direct control of the company. The opposite party no1 never received any complaint after December 2014 from the complainant. The complainant never asked for replacement of LED. Moreover there is no provision for replacement. If the complainant has any complaint with the Company, then he should make it a party to the present list. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.    Sh.Ranjit Singh Manager had appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 on 1.7.2015, thereafter, he has not come present and consequently proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.8.2015.

5.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, along with the other document exhibited as Ex. C1 and Ex.C2 and closed the evidence.

6.      On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Pankaj Gupta, Partner of M/s.Ajay TV. Centre Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.

7.        We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

8.      From the pleadings and evidence on record, we find that the complainant having purchased LED TV from opposite party no.1 is a consumer of opposite parties. It is the case of complainant that he was assured by opposite party no.1 about the excellent working of LED and the opposite party no.1 even gave oral warranty for one laps working hours. It was further alleged to be assured by opposite party no.1 that any defect during this period will be repaired free of cost or in case of need even the product sold will be replaced. The LED stopped working completely in December 2014. The complainant lodged a complaint to the opposite party no.1 who further referred to opposite party no.2 service centre. The service centre refused to make any repairs free of cost and the complainant was compelled to pay Rs.4413/- to the opposite party no.2. The complainant further submitted that despite paid service LED is not a working condition and is suffering from defects.

9.        On the other hand opposite party no.1 denied all the allegations leveled by the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint being not maintainable.

10.          From the entire above discussion we are of this considered view that this complaint can be best disposed off by giving directions and hence we direct opposite parties to effect repairs in the LED in question. The complainant has already paid Rs.4413/- for repairs and as such no further repairs charges be demanded from him. The opposite parties are further directed to repair the LED within 15 days of its receipt from the complainant and if the product is not repairable then LED be replaced with new one of the same make and made.

11.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.                                                                                                                                                              

          (Naveen Puri)

                                                                            President   

Announced:                                                   (Jagdeep Kaur)

October 23, 2015                                                   Member

*MK*