The main legal point established is the liability for deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the entitlement to compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses.

ORDER :

1. This appeal has been directed by the appellant under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as the Act) against order dated 27.01.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Una in C.C. No. 136/2018 whereby the complaint was partly allowed and the appellant No. 1 and the performa respondent No. 2 were jointly and severally were held liable to repair the TV of the respondent No. l free of cost and after repair to provide one year warranty from the date of repair. The appellants were jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 3000/- as litigation expenses.

2. It would be apposite to mention here that the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.

3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that on 13.11.2018 the complainant purchased one LED Kodak 122 cm full HD Smart TV from the opposite party No. l through cash memo dated 14.11.2018 for a sum of Rs. 31,999/-. The said TV was ordered by the complainant through the opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 3 is manufacturer of the said TV. The complainant received a sum of Rs. 5440/- as cash back. The said LED stopped functioning and this matter was immediately reported to the opposite party No. 2. In the return policy, it was stipulated that the TV can be returned but the request of the complainant for return was rejected. The complainant alleged that the OP's supplied defective TV and as such it amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, he prayed for refund of the cost of TV after deducting the amount of cash back along with compensation of Rs. 18,500/- towards physical and mental agony and a sum of Rs. 1000/- as litigation cost.

4. The claim of the complainant was resisted and contested by the OP's. The OP No. 1 and 3 in their joint reply have not disputed the sale of the TV in question in favour of the complainant. It is submitted by them that the complainant never made any complaint about the non functioning of the LED to them and that they never denied to redress grievances of the complainant. Return policy of the company is governed by the terms and conditions and that there is no deficiency of service on their part.

5. The OP No. 2 in its reply has submitted that they do not sell any goods on the website directly but provide online market place /platform which facilitate the merchant sellers after executing the market place agreement. It is admitted that the complainant had purchased the TV in question through their platform. It is also submitted that the TV was delivered to the complainant on 22.12.2018 and the complainant had alleged that the TV had stopped functioning and made return request on 26.12.2018. The request of the complainant was sent to the OP No. l but the same was rejected. So the OP No. 2 cannot be held liable for any grievance of the complainant. There was no deficiency of service on behalf of the OP No. 2.

6. The complainant filed rejoinder in which he denied the pleadings of the OP's and reiterated averments made by him in his complaint.

7. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. After hearing the parties and going through the record of the case the learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint vide order dated 27.01.2020.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.01.2020 the opposite party No. l and 3 have filed the instant appeal inter alia on the ground that the impugned order is perverse and against the settled proposition of law.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record of the case.

10. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. l and 3 has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the same is not base upon the proper appreciation of facts and law. According to him the OP No. 1 and 3 have never refused to redress the grievance of the complainant regarding repair of the