1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased Sony 24” LED TV for a sum of Rs.15, 000/- from OP.1 vide Retail Invoice No.3082 dt.28.09.2014 with one year warranty on the said TV but found on 23.9.2015 that the TV is out of order and display was not coming when the complainant wanted to operate the same.  It is submitted that he immediately contacted the OP.1 and on his advice booked a complaint Vide ID No.27752818 dt.23.09.2015 with the Authorized Centre who advised the complainant to approach OP.3 on Tel. No.944799997 and Land Line No.06854-231708.  Accordingly the complainant requested the Authorized Service Centre (ASC) to repair the LED.  It is further submitted that on 25.9.2014 at about 5.00 PM the OP.3 checked the TV and demanded Rs.7600/- towards repair charge.  As the complainant did not agree, the OP.3 went away but turned up on 28.09.15 and asked the complainant to pay Rs.5500/- towards repair of LED or else the TV would not be repaired.  Due to non repair, the complainant was deprived of enjoying the TV.  Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.15000/- towards cost of the TV and to pay Rs.15000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     All the Ops in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner and hence they were proceeded ex-parte on 06.04.2015.  We heard from the complainant at length and perused the materials available on record to decide this case on merit.

                The complainant stated that he purchased Sony 24” LED TV from OP.1 for Rs.15, 000/-.  In support of his purchase the complainant has filed original Retail Invoice issued by OP.1 vide No.3082 dt.28.09.2014.  Hence the purchase of TV from OP.1 which is manufactured by OP-2 is proved.  The allegation of the complainant is that on 23.9.2015 he found the TV is out of order and is not displaying picture and he immediately contacted OP.1 who provided Cell No.9442599997 to send a complaint to the message centre.  The complainant lodged a complaint vide ID No.27752818 dt.23.09.2015 and also was advised to contact OP No.3.  It is further stated that on request, the OP.3 came on 25.9.15 that checked the TV on 25.9.15 and demanded Rs.7600/- towards repairing charges.  As the complainant did not pay, the OP.2 went back and came again on 28.9.15 and demanded Rs.5500/- and stated that if the amount is not paid, the TV would not be repaired.  Till date the TV is lying un repaired.

4.                     The above allegations of the complainant are duly supported by the affidavit.  In spite of repeated adjournment, the Ops did not prefer to participate in the proceeding in any manner.  In this case, the complainant has also filed copy of warranty card in which it is clearly mentioned that the warranty is valid for one year from the date of purchase and without purchase invoice; the said warranty is valid up to OCT-2015.  It is also seen that the TV did not function on 23.9.15 and on the same date the complainant has lodged complaint with Ops.  The OP.3 inspected the TV on 25.9.15 and 28.9.15 with demand of some amount towards repairing charges but as the complainant did not agree to meet the demands of the OP, the repair was not taken up.  The TV became out of order within warranty period and it was the duty of Ops as per warranty condition to repair the TV under warranty but they did not do so.  Demand of money towards repair within warranty period amounts to unfair trade practice and non repair of TV under warranty terms is also amounts to deficiency in service.  The OP.3 being the authorized service Centre of OP.2 could have negated the above allegations of the complainant by participating in the proceeding but he did not do so.  Further in spite of such a huge investment, the complainant has been debarred to enjoy the TV and as such was harassed on the hands of the Ops.

5.                     In absence of counter and participation of Ops in this proceeding, the above allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged.  Hence in our opinion, the complainant was entitled to get free service and required components free of costs within said warranty period.  As the Ops have not provided in warranty service, in our view, the complainant is entitled to get refund the cost of the TV with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of defect.  The complainant has prayed for compensation.  As we have already awarded higher rate of interest on the cost of the TV, we are not inclined to award any compensation in favor of the complainant but the complainant is certainly entitled for some costs.  In our opinion, a sum of Rs.2000/- towards costs in favor of the complainant will be just and proper.

6.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.2 is directed to refund Rs.15000/- towards cost of the TV with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of defect (23.9.2015) noticed in the TV till the date of actual payment and to pay Rs.2000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)