The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Director of Panasonic India Ltd., Gurgaon, O.P No.2 is the General Manager, Panasonic India Ltd., Gulndy, Chennai, O.P No.3 is the Regional Manager of Panasonic India Ltd., Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar and O.P No.4 is Sri Rajesh Kumar Sarawagi, M/s. Bhabani Sales Corporation, Balasore.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant purchased a Panasonic LED T.V-TH L50B6DFHD on 13.11.2016 for Rs.70,200/- (Rupees Seventy thousand two hundred) only from the O.P No.4, who is the authorised dealer of O.P No.1. But, after few days of installation of the T.V, it started showing problems, which was intimated by the Complainant to the dealer (O.P No.4) frequently. Since the O.P No.4 did not pay any heed to the complaint of the Complainant, the Complainant gave a written complaint to him on 04.01.2017, which was duly acknowledged by S.K Dutta, a staff of O.P No.4 and thereafter, the O.P No.4 sent a mechanic to repair the said T.V, but the mechanic failed to repair the T.V by saying that the T.V should be referred to the manufacturer company for repairing. So, the Complainant produced the T.V along with its warranty card for necessary repairing on 10.01.2017 within the warranty period before O.P No.4 and Mr. S.K Dutta, staff of O.P No.4 acknowledged the receipt of the same. The O.P No.4 asked the Complainant to deposit the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) only on 18.03.2017 to purchase parts from outside sources, but the Complainant denied to deposit Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) only in writing and demanded to repair or replace the said T.V, which the O.Ps have bluntly denied to do so. So, the Complainant issued a notice to O.P No.1 on 17.04.2017 with a copy to O.P No.4 requesting them to solve the dispute within a period of 30 days, but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to it. Cause of action arose on 13.11.2016 and on 18.03.2017. The Complainant has prayed for replacement of the defective T.V along with compensation and litigation cost.

                    3. Though sufficient opportunities were given to O.Ps No.1 to 3, but they have not appeared in this case. The O.Ps No.1 to 3 are also set ex-parte.

                    4. Written version filed by the O.P No.4 through his Advocate denying on the point of maintainability. The O.P No.4 has further submitted that the Complainant has purchased one Panasonic LED T.V on 13.11.2016 from O.P No.4. On 01.01.2017, the Complainant complained to O.P No.4 that the said T.V has been stopped and O.P No.4 replied to the Complainant that he is the only agency to sale the Panasonic LED T.V and for servicing, there is separate wings i.e. Company service centre at Telenga Sahi, Balasore. After receiving of summon from the Forum, the O.P No.4 started enquiry and came to know that after giving complaint by the Complainant, the Company service centre technicians verified the said T.V and they confirmed that there is no fault in the T.V set and the T.V is fully OK, which was verified by the Technician of Panasonic T.V company and also informed this to the Complainant, but the Complainant is not satisfied and filed this case. Neither the O.P No.4 nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case.  

                    5. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps ?

(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

                    6. In order to substantiate their claim, the Complainant has filed certain documents, whereas the O.Ps have not filed any documents in their support. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that after purchase of LED T.V set worth of Rs.70,200/- (Rupees Seventy thousand two hundred) only, when there was problem in it, she made complain to the O.Ps, but the mechanic came to her house for repair and failed to do the same with a opinion that it should be referred to the manufacturer company for repairing within the warranty period. The O.P No.4 asked to deposit Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) only and when she did not agree, the problem was not solved. Then she issued notice to O.P No.1 with a copy to O.P No.4 to solve her dispute within 30 days, but it was in vain. Thus, the Complainant has filed this case praying for replacement of the defective T.V along with compensation and litigation cost. On the other hand, the O.Ps No.1 to 3 are set ex-parte as mentioned earlier and O.P No.4 though filed his written version did not take part in hearing. It is undisputed fact that she has purchased LED T.V set from O.P No.4 and there was problem in viewing the picture and the problem as pointed out was not solved by the O.Ps. In the written version, O.P No.4 tried to shift his responsibilities disclosing that he is the only agency to sale the Panasonic LED T.V and for servicing, there is a separate wing at Telenga Sahi, Balasore, which is the Company service centre. The warranty card has been produced with the T.V to O.P No.4 as disclosed from the documents available in the case record. Though the invoice discloses that the name of buyer is Mrs. Suprarekha Mohapatra and the Complainant is Mrs. Siprarekha Mohapatra and this ambiguity has been rectified by the Complainant by filing of an affidavit and a copy of Aadhar card after hearing of this case. So, that minor discrepancies ignored and the fact remains that the Complainant is the purchaser of the said LED T.V set. The O.Ps No.1 to 4 are jointly or severally liable for repair of the same. But, without repairing the same, they remained silent. The O.P No.4 does not care for filing of the warranty card produced before him by the Complainant for perusal of the Forum. So, now it can be presumed that the said LED T.V is/ was within the warranty period. So, the Complainant is entitled for replacement of the goods with a new goods of similar description, which shall be free from any defect or in the alternative, she is entitled for price of the goods paid by her from the O.Ps and the O.Ps are jointly or severally liable for the same as mentioned earlier along with compensation and litigation cost.

                    7. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, this Forum come to the conclusion that the O.Ps are jointly or severally liable for replacement of the said LED T.V set with a new one of similar description, which shall be free from any defect or in the alternative, they are also jointly or severally liable for return of the price of the said LED T.V set paid by the Complainant along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Hence, ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed on ex-parte against O.Ps No.1 to 3 and on contest against O.P No.4 with cost. The O.Ps are jointly or severally directed to replace the said LED T.V set with a new one of similar description, which shall be free from any defect or in the alternative, they should return the price of the said LED T.V set paid by the Complainant  along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps as per Law, in case of failure by the O.Ps to comply the Order.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 12th day of April, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.