1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he purchased a Panasonic TV model-TH 32- L29B6 DX from OP No.1 for Rs.20, 600/- vide Invoice No.5630 dt.28.10.2013 and availed 3 years warranty by registering the product with the Company within 7 days from the date of purchase but in the month of January, 2015 the complainant found that the TV is defective.  The complainant contacted the OP.2 through helpline and the technician of OP.2 found the Mother Board of the TV is defective and suggested replacement.  It is submitted that after several months the OP.2 intimated that the Mother Board is not available as the said model is out of production and suggested to replace the defective TV with another model VIETA- TH-32A 300DX with payment of differential price of Rs.950/- to which the complainant agreed having no other go.  The OP.2 installed the new TV by replacing the defective one but after one year of such installation some defects were noticed in the TV.  The complainant contacted the technician of the Company working for Jeypore till 14.9.2016 and also registered a complaint with the Company vide Request No.R1409/6080551 but in spite of assurances the Ops did not turn up.  It is further submitted that one day the service personnel appeared in the residence of the complainant and found the front panel of the TV defective and suggested replacement after getting nod from the Company.  From that date the complainant persistently contacting the Company and its technicians but to no avail.  Finally Bhubaneswar Executive of the Company informed the complainant that the cost of the front panel at Rs.8500/- is to be borne by the complainant and when the complainant drew their attention about 3 years warranty, they stated that the matter is to be examined.  On 10.12.2016 through an SMS the OP.2 canceled the service request and the TV is lying unused.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to get the TV repaired by replacing the spares and to pay Rs.15, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     In spite of valid notice the Ops neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner and remained ex-parte.  Hence the matter was heard from the A/R for the complainant for orders.  The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.

3.                     In this case the complainant had purchased a Panasonic TV Model TH 32 – L29B6 DX from OP.1 on 28.10.2013 with 3 years warranty and in support of his purchase, the complainant has filed the copy of retail invoice issued by OP.1.  The complainant stated that during January, 2015 the TV became out of order and the technician of the Company found Mother Board of the TV defective and to be replaced.  As the production of said TV stopped, the Company suggested the complainant to have another model VIETA-TH- 32 A300DX of Panasonic on payment of differential amount of Rs.950/- and it was seen that the said set was handed over to the complainant by company personnel on 22.2.2015.

4.                     It is the further case of the complainant that the 2^nd TV became defective during August, 2016 and on persistent approach, the Company technician attended the TV and found the Front Panel of TV is defective and suggested replacement.  The technician assured that he will inform the Company and on receipt of component he will come and repair the TV but did not turn up.  On contact to Bhubaneswar Executive of the Company, he stated that the complainant is to pay Rs.8500/- towards cost of the component as the warranty of the TV is over.  Thus the TV is lying unrepaired.

5.                     In absence of counter and participation of Ops in this proceeding, the above allegation and averments of the complainant remained unchallenged.  The complainant stated that during warranty period both the TV went out of order.  It is seen that the 1^st TV was purchased on 28.10.2013.  On the retail invoice of the TV, the Company has endorsed 3 years warranty on the TV.  The 1^st TV went out of order during 1/2015 i.e. within 15 months of its purchase.  Hence the Company supplied the 2^nd TV without repairing the 1^st one as the production of 1^st TV was stopped by the Company.  Non production of same brand of TV by the Company is not the mistake of the complainant.  However, the company is duty bound to give after sale service to the complainant.  During installation of 2^nd TV, it is seen that no warranty card has been supplied by the Company.  Instead of supplying the new certificate of warranty, the Company personnel used the warranty certificate of 1^st TV and hence adopted the conditions for 2^nd TV.  They have mentioned model and other details of new TV on the old warranty certificate and endorsed signature with dt.22.2.2015.

6.                     As the Company stopped production of 1^st TV, it supplied 2^nd TV of new model and used the certificate of warranty of 1^st TV.  It was the duty of the Company to provide proper and adequate service to the complainant as per conditions of warranty and as such the Company replaced the defective TV which had warranty of 3 years with a new one.  That means the warranty under 1^st TV automatically shifts to the 2^nd TV as they have adopted the certificate of warranty of 1^st TV.  By changing the TV, the Company cannot waive out the original warranty of 3 years under 1^st TV.  Therefore, the warranty can be available to the complainant till 27.10.2016 since the 1^st TV was purchased on 28.10.2013.  It is seen that the 2^nd TV went out of order during August, 2016 and hence in the above facts and circumstances, it can be safely held that the 2^nd TV of the complainant became out of order within the warranty period and the OP.2 is to replace the component free of cost to bring the same into use.  Such inaction of OP.2 in our opinion amounts serious deficiency in service on its part.

7.                     It is further seen that the complainant for more than 1 year failed to enjoy the TV in spite of efforts, due to the fault of the OP.2 and has incurred some expenditure in making correspondences and also for this litigation.  The complainant by this way must have suffered some mental agony.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant we feel a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and cost in his favor will meet the ends of justice.

8.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.2 is directed to replace the Front Panel of the TV in question and bring the set into order on its cost and to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)