SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW   : MEMBER
          This is a  complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986   for an order  directing  the opposite parties  to  rectify the defect of the LCD TV and the opposite parties  to  pay compensation of  Rs.15,000/- to the complainant  for the deficiency of  service on their part.
  The case of the complainant in brief   
    The complainant  had purchased a LED TV model 40PFL3750 worth Rs.30,600/- from  2nd  opposite party's shop  at Payyanur   on 26/02/2016.  The 2nd opposite party has  assured 3 years extended warranty from 26/2/16.  Thereafter the TV set became  defective on 5/12/18.  The complainant approached  2nd opposite party for repair the TV, but he  send a technician to inspect the product on 7/12/18, after the inspection the technician informed that the LCD display is damaged  and need to  replace some internal spares, and  the complainant contacted 2nd opposite party and 2nd opposite party  replied   to the fact that the  1st opposite party brand products are manufactured by a 3rd party and no service deficiency on the part of 2nd opposite party.  The technician also charged Rs.200/- from the complainant towards the inspection and provided voucher dt.7/12/18.  The complainant brought the  defective LED TV to 2nd opposite party for rectification. But the 2nd opposite party states that the  1st opposite party's brand  name is  manufactured by a 3rd party company,  therefore the warranty  liability  is vested with 3rd party manufacturer and  3rd party company is not in existence. Then the  2nd opposite party  had kept  the LCD TV under his custody and issued acknowledgment dtd.9/12/19 and also informed him that  they will charge for the spares and may not rectify or replace the LCD TV.  But the opposite parties neither repair the set nor  replaced  another TV set within the warranty period.  So there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties .   Hence the complaint.
   After filing the complaint, notice was issued , opposite parties received the  notice and not  appeared  before the  Fora and   filed any  versions.  Ultimately the Forum had to hold that the  opposite parties have no version as such in this case and this case came to be proceed against the  opposite parties  as set exparte.
    Eventhough, the opposite parties  remainded ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegation made by him against the  opposite parties.  Hence the  complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of  affidavit and  documents.   Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce his afidavit along with 5 documents marking them Exts.A1 to A7.  The  opposite parties were remained absent in this case.  At the end the Forum  heard the case on merits.
      Let  us have a clear glance at the  relevant documents  of the  complainant.  Ext.A1 is the  original cash bill  paid by the complainant for the LED TV for an amount of Rs.30,600/- to the  2nd opposite party .Ext.A2 is the service charge received Rs.200/- dtd.7/12/18.  According to him the TV was purchased on 26/2/16 as per Ext.A1. So the  opposite parties bound  either to repair the  TV or to replace  or refund the price of the TV.  Since the opposite parties denied to repair or replace the TV set.  There is deficiency of service  on their part.   Under this circumstances, we are of the  considered view that the opposite parties are directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant.  So the complainant is entitled to get the  purchase price of TV set from the opposite parties.  Therefore  we hold that the opposite parties were jointly and severally  liable to rectify the TV or refund Rs.30,600/- (Rupees thirty thousand six  hundred only) to the  complainant.  So  we hold that the opposite parties jointly and severally  liable to refund Rs.30,600/- (Rupees thirty thousand six  hundred only)  along with Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as litigation  cost  to the complainant.
           In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties  jointly and severally  to refund Rs.30,600/- (Rupees thirty thousand six  hundred only) to the  complainant along with Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as litigation  cost    within  30 days of the receipt of the order, failing which the complainant shall be  at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Exts:
A1- 26/02/16 cash bill
A2- 7/12/18Inspection bill
A3-2/3/19-lawyer notice
A4- postal receipt
A5,A5(a)- AD cards
A6-warranty card
A7-9/2/19-s delivery receipt.

Sd/                                                       Sd/                                                 Sd/
MEMBER                                       MEMBER                                       PRESIDENT
eva                                                  /Forwarded by Order/
                                                         SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT