1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Micromax LED Monitor Model No.MM195H76, 19.5 Inches from OP.1 vide Invoice No.01 dt.18.01.2016 for Rs.16, 500/- which is manufactured by OP.2 and within 3 months of its use all of a sudden, while in use, the monitor got cracked on its middle screen with unusual sound on 15.4.2016.  It is submitted that the complainant immediately informed the OP.1 who informed the OP.3 (ASC) and the OP.3 contacted main distributor at Bhubaneswar to supply a new monitor in lieu of defective one and the OP.1 received the defective monitor on 15.4.2016.  It is further submitted that the OP.3 contacted one Manas Sahoo of Bhubaneswar Distributor Point who assured to supply a new monitor but as the Ops remained silent, the complainant sent an email request on 25.5.16 to OP.2 who assured to look into the matter but to no avail.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops either to replace the defective monitor with a new one or to refund Rs.16, 500/- towards the cost of the Monitor with interest @ 18% p.a. from 15.4.2016 and to pay Rs.75, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

2.                     The OP No.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the purchase of alleged Micromax Computer LED Monitor and accessories by the complainant from him for Rs.16, 500/- on 18.01.2016.  It is contended that he sales computer with nominal profit and the Ops 2 & 3 are authorised to look into after sale service of the computer within warranty period.  It is further contended that after purchase of computer the complainant has never visited the shop of OP.1 with complaint of crack in the monitor and the OP.1 has never contacted anybody for replacement of the same.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP No.2 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the Ops 1 & 3 never and ever intimated the OP.2 regarding defect in the computer of the complainant.  It is contended that the complainant has neither filed any document nor any expert report showing that the alleged monitor was a defective one.  Denying any email dt.25.5.2016 received from the complainant, the OP.2 also contended that by 25.5.2016, the warranty of the monitor was not valid and no copy of email has been filed by the complainant.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.2 also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.  The OP No.3 has neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.

4.                     The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.  In absence of the parties at the time of hearing, the case was posted for orders on merit basing upon the materials available on record.

5.                     In this case purchase of Micromax LED monitor bearing Model No.MM195H76 by the complainant from OP.1 vide Receipt No.01 dt.18.1.2016 for Rs.16, 500/- is an admitted fact.  The case of the complainant is that on 15.4.2016, the computer while on use cracked on its middle screen and the fact was intimated to OP.1 immediately.  The Ops 1 & 3 took up the matter with their main Distributor Point at Bhubaneswar and as there was no result, the complainant intimated the fact to OP.2 on 25.5.2016 through an email who assured to look into the matter but to no avail.

6.                     The OP.1 in his counter stated that the complainant purchased the computer in good condition but crack of monitor is not within its knowledge as the complainant has not intimated anything to him.  The OP stated that the Ops 2 & 3 are responsible for after sale service within warranty period but due to lack of knowledge, he has neither intimated anything to OP.3 nor assured for replacement of the set.

7.                     On the face of above contentions of OP.1, we have gone through the record and found that the complainant has filed a certificate dt.19.7.2016 issued by OP.1.  In that certificate the OP.1 has admitted that the complainant has returned the monitor to him as it was cracked in the screen.  This certificate speaks a volume about the credence of OP.1 as he told in his counter.  On the one hand he denies about any knowledge regarding defect in the monitor and on the other, he issues certificate showing receipt of defective monitor by him.  From the above facts it was clearly ascertained that the monitor of the complainant was cracked and the same was received by OP.1 on return by the complainant.  However, the fate of defective computer is not coming up till date.

8.                     The OP.2 in his counter stated that the complainant has not filed a single document in order to show that the alleged monitor is a defective one.   Denying any email dt.25.5.2016 received from the complainant, the OP stated that no expert report is submitted by the complainant showing the monitor is a defective one.  It is seen from the record that the complainant has sent the email to OP.2, the copy of which is available on record.  The complainant in that email has approached the OP.2 to repair the defective screen and the OP.2 on the same day assured the complainant that within 24 working hours, they will respond back.  It is seen that the OP.2 did not revert.

9.                     In this case, monitor of the complainant cracked and he approached the OP.1 & 2 properly.  The monitor was also received by OP.1 with due acknowledgement.  The OP.1 took up the matter with OP.3 (ASC) but till date the problem of the complainant could not be solved.  The OP No.2 further stated that by 25.5.2016 there was no warranty on the monitor but did not speak about the period of warranty granted by OP.2 on the monitor in question.  Period of warranty on the monitor must be disclosed by OP.2 but we feel it cannot be a 3 month warranty on monitor in absence of any specific reply by OP.2.  Therefore, non repair of monitor by Ops or non replacement under warranty certainly amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.16, 500/- towards cost of monitor with interest.  Further due to such inaction of the Ops, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and also has come up with this case incurring some expenditure for which he is entitled for some compensation and cost.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and cost will meet the ends of justice.

10.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops 1 & 2 being jointly and severally liable are directed to refund Rs.16, 500/- towards cost of the monitor with interest @ 12% p.a. from 15.4.2016 and to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)