Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.

          The complainant  Shashanka Shekhar Pradhan  has  filed  a  complaint  before this  Forum ( now known as Commission)    U/s. 12 of C.P.Act, 1986.

2.       The  case of the  complainant is that he has purchased a  Sony  make KDL-32EX-650  model LED TV  from the  opp.party No.1  on  12.06.2012 on payment of Rs.44,9000.0. Annexure- 1   is the  photo copy of the  said  retail invoice issued by opp.party No.1. Annexure- 2  is the photo copy of  warranty  card issued by opp.party No.2 on the   same day  .Opp.party No.1   is the  authorised  dealer. Opp.party No.3  is the  authorised  service provider. In the  month of July, 2018 the  TV purchased by the complainant  became  fully defective. Horizontal  lines constantly appeared  on the   TV screen  from  April, 2018, The  complainant  registered his  complaint  on 08.07.2018  in Customer Care No. 18001037799  and his complaint   was registered as  ID No- 48509693 with  Job  order No. J81784245 dt.08.07.2018 .The  customer  care centre  assured the  complainant  to  make necessary repair of the TV by replacing  the display panel  within a  week as they have  already  placed  order  for  the panel. The  opp.party No.3  asked the  complainant to contact their  mother agency   for  more  information about the  replacement of the  panel. On contact  to the  agency  it  was  informed that the  panel of the particular  TV is  not  available  and he  can purchase  a new  TV   by exchanging   the  old  one  after payment of 75%  of the  cost of the  new TV.The  complainant  was harassed and  sent Email  to the  opp.parties  on 26.07.2018 and 01.08.2018 .The  opp.party No.2  acknowledged  the  complaint  and  sent   e- mail on 26.07.2018 . Annexure- 3  is the  photo copy of the  said e-mail. One  Meena Bose the  customer  care office of  opp.party No.2’s company   sent  an email  to the  complainant  on  01.08.2018  who  informed that he has  sent the  complaint of the  complaint to the  Regional office  for  immediate   solution. Annexure-4  is the  photo  copy  of the said email  of  Meena Boss. The  Service head Desk of opp.party No.2  also sent  a reply to the  complainant  through  email  on 01.08.2018  .Annexure- 5   is the   photo copy of the  said email received by the  complainant. Since then the  complainant is  regularly requesting the opp.parties  for   early repair but  no  response. The  family members   of the  complainant  are  addicted to  different   programmes on the  TV which  is  an essential  need of   modern life. They are also deprived  of watching  news and  other essential  informations. The  old  ailing  parents  of the  complainant are  deprived  from  passing  their  time  by  watching  devotional programmes. Due  to  inaction  of the  opp.parties  the complainant  and  his  family members  are  suffering  from severe mental  agony  and  subjected to  harassment. Hence this  complaint.

3.       Notice  was  issued to all the opp.parties through  Regd. Post with A.D on 09.08.2018  .A.Ds   of opp.party No.1 & 3 are available  in the  case record. The notice issued to opp.party No.2  through Regd. Post with  A.D on 09.08.2018 and the  A.D  is  not  received back  by this    Commission. So  in  view   of  Sectin-27  of General Clauses Act  it  is  deemed  that notice has been duly served on opp.party No.2.

4.       The opp.party No.2  &3 neither appeared  nor  contested the case  by filing their  written statement. However  on  perusal of  order dtd. 18.12.2018  it  appears that opp.party No.1    has filed  a  written version through post .

           On the  perusal of   said  written version   it appears that one   Milind Gupta  has filed the  written version. Absolutely nothing  in the  written version,  how  the  said   Mr.Gupta is  associated with the  company of opp.party No.1  and  who has  authorised him to file  the written version. Opp.party No.1 did not participate in hearing .

5.       Admittedly the  complainant  has   purchased  a TV from opp.party No.1  on 12.06.2012  by paying an amount of Rs. 44,900.00.Annexurte- 1  is the  photo  copy   of the  said  retail invoice  which  shows  that the  complainant   has  purchased  a TV  from  opp.party No.1  on 12.06.2012  on payment of Rs. 44,900.00. Annexure- 2  is the photo copy of  warranty card which shows that the  warranty card  is  valid  for one year from the date of  purchase. At  paragraph- 2  of   his  complaint  , the  complainant has alleged  that in the  month of July, 2018  the T.V set purchased  by him  was became defective, for  which  he registered   his  complaint  through  Customer Care  Service. From the  contents of the  complaint petition it  is also  clear that   a staff of  opp.party No.3  inspected the TV of the  complainant and  disclosed that the  display panel  is  to be   changed and  according to his advise the  complainant   approached  the opp.parties  on different  points of time  for  necessary repairing. Annexure- 3,4 & 5  are the  communications  in   between the  complainant   and  some   of the  opp.parties.   At  paragraph- 5  of the  complainant   petition it  is   alleged that   on the  advise of opp.party No.3  the  complainant  contacted  the  mother  agencies  “Royal Service Center,Sambalpur”   to  gather  more information  for  replacement of the panel. On contact the  said  mother agency  informed the  complainant to   purchase  a  new  TV  on exchange  of old TV by paying 75%  of  the cost  of new TV  as the   panel of the  particular  TV  of the  complainant  is  not  available. Thereafter the  complainant   also   contacted the  opp.parties   but   no  result. The opp.parties did   not  appear  before this  authority  to refute  the  allegations  made by  the  complainant  against  them. The  co-called  written statement  filed by  one  Milind Gupta  does  not  show  how  he  is  related to  opp.party No.1  and   who authorised  him to file the  show cause. However, it is  crystal  clear  from the  materials  on record that  the  TV  purchased by the  complainant became  defective  in the   month of July, 2018   , although  it was purchased on 12.06.2012 . It is  also  clear  that  as  the  panel of the  TV  purchased  by the  complainant  is  not   available   with  the   company , so   it   could not be  repaired. Once a  product  is   lunched  and  sold  by the company  through  its  agencies  it is  the duty of the company  to provide the  spare parts . As in this  case the  company- opp.party No.2  failed  to   supply  the  panel of the TV purchased  by the  complainant  for  necessary repairing  , there is  deficiency in service on  the part of  opp.party No.2.

6.       Now  days   TV  is   the   part  of the  human life. By watching  TV  a  person used to  get  news of the whole world, watch religious  programme, programme relating  to  education  including  physical education  and  etc. It is   also  clear that the  complainant  and  his family  members are  deprived  of   the  benefit of  watching TV,  which caused   harassment  and   mental agony to  those  persons. The  opp.party No. 2   is  liable  to  compensate  for  the  aforesaid   deficiency  in its  service.

7.       Hence order :-

: O R D E R :

          The case be and  the same   is   allowed in part, exparte   all the  opp.parties.  The opp.party No.2  is  directed  to  pay an  amount of  Rs.22,000.00 (Rupees Twenty-Two Thousand) only for TV  and  an  amount of Rs.25,000.00 (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) only  as  compensation  for mental agony, harassment  caused to the  complainant  &  his family  members and litigation expenses . The  opp.party No.2  is  directed to comply the  order  within  one  month  from the date of  receipt of this order, failing  which  the   complainant is  entitled to get  interest @9% per annum   on the  ordered amount  i.e Rs.47,000.00 (Rupees Forty-Seven  Thousand) only till payment is  made.