1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that, he purchased one Samsung LED TV 32” from OP.1 vide Invoice No.1288 dt.08.08.2013 for Rs.36, 500/- and after 7 months of its purchase the Penal of the said TV did not function properly for which as per advice of OP.1( dealer) the complainant contacted OP.2.  It is submitted that on 03.4.2014 the technician of OP.2 replaced the Penal but on 17.7.2014 the said panel did not function for which the TV did not display anything and on complaint the technician of OP.2 replaced the Penal on 18.7.2014 and received Rs.750/- towards extended warranty of the TV for 18 months.  It is further submitted that on 15.10.2015 the Penal did not function and on complainant to OP.1, he did not respond.  Further on complaint to OP.2 vide No.4202907674 on 16.10.2015, the said OP.2 refused to replace the Penal and replied that the Penal is not covered under any extended warranty and hence the TV is lying unused.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant prayed the Forum to direct the OP.1 to refund Rs.36, 500/- besides Rs.60, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 in spite of valid notice did not participate in the proceeding in any manner.  The OP.2 though entered his appearance through his A/R, neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.  Hence we have heard from the A/R for the complainant to decide the case on merit.  The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case.  We have also perused the materials available on record.

3.                     In this case the complainant has filed copy of retail invoice No.1288 dt.08.08.2013 in support of purchase of Samsung LED TV 32” from OP.1 for Rs.36, 500/- and hence the purchase of TV by the complainant from OP.1 which is a product of OP.2 is proved.  The complainant alleges that after 7 months of purchase, the Panel of the TV did not function properly and the OP.2 replaced the Panel on 03.04.2014.  Again the said Panel was replaced by OP.2 on 18.7.2014 when it did not function.

4.                     The case of the complainant is that on 18.7.2014 the OP.1 requested the complainant to avail extended warranty of 18 months on the said TV for a payment of Rs.750/- and the complainant has paid the amount to OP.2 through OP.1.  Again the Panel did not function on 15.10.2015 and the complainant approached the Ops vide Complaint No.4202907674 but the OP.2 on 16.10.2015 refused to replace the Panel and demanded Rs.15, 000/-.  As the complainant refused to satisfy the demand of Ops due to existence of extended warranty, the OP.2 canceled service request of the complainant.

5.                     In absence of counter and participation of Ops in this case, we failed to know anything from their side and hence the allegations of the complainant duly supported by affidavit remained unchallenged.  It is seen that the Ops have replaced the Panel for two times.  Further, the payment of Rs.750/- by the complainant for extended warranty remains unrebutted.  During extended warranty period, the Panel again became defective and non replacement of the same under warranty in our opinion amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.  Moreover, during inherent warranty period the Panel also was replaced two times ending on 18.7.2014.   Further, we are not inclined to consider the prayer of the complainant to direct the Ops to refund the cost of the LED TV as because the TV is non functional due to defect in the Penal.  Hence the Ops are to be directed to replace the Penal of the TV with a new one and make the TV functional.  Further due to such inaction of the Ops, the complainant has suffered and has come up with this case incurring some expenditure for which he is entitled for some compensation and cost of this litigation.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and cost in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

6.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to replace the Penal of the TV in question with a new one and make the TV functional and to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

( to dict.)