1.  Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, the complainant filed this case against the O.Ps for a direction to replace the LED TV or refund the price value alongwith compensation.
2. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased one LED TV vide Model No. LC40LE185M from the O.P. No.1 for a consideration of Rs.27,999/-  on  21.12.2017 which was manufactured by the O.P.No.4  .The complainant had received the aforesaid Led TV from the O.P.No.1 which was in the box .When the complainant opened the box it was found that the O.PNo.1 had though issued a Warranty Card in favour of the complainant which was lying vacant. There was scratch on the said LEd TV and it was not functioning properly .The complainant immediately complained before the O.P. but there was no respond of that time. The aforesaid TV. Was found defective during the warranty period from the very beginning and did not function at all. The O.P. cheated the complainant by provide a defective Led TV and the warranty card issued by him was blank for which  the Opposite party caused deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the complainant. The complainant approached the O.P.No.1 on several occasions to settle the matter, but the O.P. could not take any steps for which the complainant filed this case before the Hon’ble Forum for replacement of LED TV and compensation.
3.  After being noticed, the O.P.No.1 sent counter through post. The case of the O.P.No.1 is that   the complaint is not maintainable both on the law and facts. There is absolutely no cause of action arise in favour of the complainant to file this case. The complainant petition is bad for non-joinder necessary party. The O.P. No.1 also challenged the jurisdiction of the case. He further submits that for whose jurisdiction where the complainant filed this case. The O.P. is not manufacturing company. The O.P. is not authorize to carry repair, but it is done by other service manufactured by   the company. The O.P. further submits that the complaint is false as such denied  by the O.P. The case of the complaint is not based on merit and liable to be dismissed. Though notice has been sent to other O.Ps they did not appear in this case and they are set ex-parte.
4.  The point for determination in this case whether the complainant is a consumer against the O.Ps and whether the O.P. caused  any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the complainant.
5. There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant has purchased LED TV from the O.P. No,.1 for a consideration of RS.27,999/-on 21.12.2017. As such he complainant is a consumer against the O.Ps.The O.P also admits that the TV found defective on physical damage which was not under condition of warranty. It seems that the TV was found defective within the warranty period. Though the complainant approached the O.Ps on several occasions to rectify the defect but they did not turn up which proves deficiency of service and unfair trade practice made by them.
6.  Taking into consideration of the case of the complainant and submission made by them   we allow  the case of the complainant in part and direct the O.P.No.4 to refund the price value of Rs.27,999/-(Rupees twenty seven thousand nine hundred ninety nine) only or replace the LED TV with a new on free from defect within one month from the date of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take steps against the O.P. No.4.The case against O.P.No.1, 2 and 3 is dismissed without cost.

Order pronounced in the open court under the seal and signature of the forum this the 7^th day of December, 2018.