FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH Date of Institution : 10.11.2021 Date of Reserve : 16.03.2023 Date of Decision : 10.04.2023 Super Plastronics Private Limited, B-29, 30, 31, Sector 81, Phase- 2, Noida 201305 through its authorized representative Gurjeet Singh aged about 54 years S/o Harbans Singh R/o 71-A, Sargodha Colony, Ludhaina.

….Appellant/Opposite party No.2 Versus

1. Jaskiran Kaur wife of Narinder Paul Singh resident of 53, Holy City, Near Gumtala Bypass, Amritsar-143008.

…..Respondent/Complainant

2. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., Vaishnavi Summit No.6/B, 7^th Main, 80 Ft. Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala, Bangaluru District Karnataka through its Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

3. Consulting Rooms Pvt. Ltd., House No.37/3, Old Rajinder Nagar, Near Water Tank, Central Delhi 110060 through its Managing Director.

…..Proforma Respondents/Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 19.07.2021 passed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.

Quorum:-

Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-

For the appellant : Sh.Shehbaz Thind, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh.N.P.Singh, Authorized Rep.

For respondent No.2 : Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for Sh.Rohit Kumar, Advocate For respondent No.3 : Sh.Deepak Jaglan, Advocate for Sh.Navneen Sheokand, Advocate HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/opposite party No.2–Super Plastronics Pvt. Ltd., against the order dated 19.07.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short ‘District Commission’), Amritsar, whereby the complaint was decided in favour of the complainant and the Opposite parties No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally are directed to replace the defective product i.e. LED TV of the complainant with new one of the same Make and Model or in the alternative to refund the sale price of the LED TV i.e. Rs.43,999/- alongwith interest @9% from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. They were also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation, out of which Rs.4,000/- to be deposited in Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Commission and Rs.6,000/- to be paid to the complainant. Further they were directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.

It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

2. The complainant purchased LED TV 55’ for Rs.43,999/-, brand Kodak, vide invoice dated 31.12.2017 in pursuance of the advertisement given by opposite party No.1 i.e. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. as the same was on discount of Rs.2,000/-. TV manual and warranty card was also supplied at the time of purchase and TV was installed by the technician of Kodak. Opposite party No.3 are with opposite party No.1 as per invoice generated by opposite party No.1. On 20.08.2018, screen of the TV start giving some horizontal lines but they disappeared after sometime and TV started working normal. On 01.09.2018, the same lines appeared on the screen but this time they did not vanish, due to which the complainant contacted opposite party No.2 on their phone Nos.180030002228 and +919311119721 and informed about the working of TV but he received no response from them. Once again, he contacted them for the lines appearing on the TV screen and also sent an email on their email ID consumercare@kodaktv.in on 05.09.2018 but no answer was received. Ultimately, on 07.09.2018, the complainant received an email from the opposite parties to send a copy of the invoice and the picture of the TV defect which was accordingly supplied on 08.09.2018. Instead of that no one visited the house of the complainant to remove the defects of the TV. The LED TV was still under warranty period but no efforts were made by the opposite parties to resolve the defect which amounts to