ORDER                                  Dated:  25-10-2016

     Vikram kr. Dabas, Member



1.     Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased
a Videocon T.V. set  for a sum of Rs. 30900/- from OP2 on 14.07.2014
vide  invoice No. SLF02A104030009954 manufactured by OP1 and financed
by OP3 in ten installments ( 10 EMIs)  of Rs. 3090/- each.  It is
alleged  by the complainant that  after about 7 months of running the
T.V. set did not work properly on 16.01.2015. The complainant lodged
complaint with Videocon support system and a technical field executive
was sent by OP1 for initial survey who resolved that the screen was
broken internally and he noticed no external damage on the body of the
TV Set.  It is further alleged by the complainant that the Videocon
Technical Executive forwarded this complaint to the service center who
informed that this defect/ product is not covered under warranty and
offered an estimated amount of Rs. 21000/- for changing the LED panel
of the TV Set.  The complainant  has alleged that he then lodged
complainant with OP2 vide  complaint No. BON180115FS00006 on
18-01-2015 but the complaint was again routed to the Videocon service
center.   The complainant  again lodged complaint to all the OPs on
03.02.2015 detailing the manufacturing defect and requested to replace
the  TV set as the OP mechanic could not repair the defect in the TV
set but to no avail.  It is alleged by the complainant that OPs did
not even reply to the legal notice sent to them on 16.03.2015. Hence,
the complaint.

2.     Despite service of notice all the OPs failed to appear hence
they were ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte on 15-12-2015.

3.      In the evidence the complainant has filed his own affidavit
along with the photocopy of invoice dated 14.07.2014 , copy of the
complaint to all the OPs dated 03.02.2015 , copy of the legal notice,
bank statement of  complainant’s account showing debit of all the
installments of Rs. 3090/- (EMIs). In affidavit, the complainant has
corroborated the contents of the complaint. As nobody opted to appear
and contest the allegations contained in the complaint, the affidavit
filed by the complainant stating therein a manufacturing defect
remained unrebutted.  We, therefore, hold the manufacturer i.e. OP1
deficient in rendering services to the complainant. We accordingly
direct OP1 as under:-

1.     Refund of Rs. 30900/- towards cost of T.V.  set paid by the
complainant  along with interest @ 10 % p.a. from the date of
institution of the complaint i.e. 29.04.2015 till realisation.  The
OP1 will hand over the defective T.V. to the OP at the time of payment
by OP.

2.     Pay  to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5000/- as pain and agony
suffered by him which will include the cost of litigation.

4.      The above amount shall be paid by OP1 to the complainant
within 30 days from the date of this order failing  which OP1 shall be
liable to pay interest on  the entire awarded amount @ 10% p.a. from
the date of this order till the date of payment. If OP1 fails to
comply with the order within 30 days, the complainant may approach
this forum U/s 25 or 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

5.     Copy of this order be made available to both the parties as per
law. File be consigned to record room.



Announced on ……….