1.     Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice the complainant   has filed this case against the O.Ps for a direction to replace the defective LED T.V( PHILIPS)  on the same brand or return the price value of the same.

      2.The case of the complainant is that  he had purchased a LED TV (PHILIPS) vide model No.20PFL3938 V/7  for a consideration Rs.12,000/- on 23.2.2016 from the O.P.No.1 .The O.P.No.1 has granted a receipt vide receipt NO.1019 dd.23.2.2016 in favour of the complainant. The complainant used the same for  some months, but  after  3 to 4 four months the aforesaid TV found defective  and the complainant could not use the same. The complainant approached the O.P for rectification of the defects on the same LED TV   and as the O.P  did not take any steps  for which the complainant field this case against the O.Ps before this forum for  replacement  or in alternative pay the price value of the said LED TV alongwith compensation.

      3.  After being noticed the O.PNo1 appeared and filed counter in this case. The case O.PNo1. Is that the case is not maintainable against the answering O.P and the O.P.No.1 admits the purchase of the said LED TV and also admits that the complainant approached the O.P. regarding defect of LED TV  and as per the advice of the O.PNo1 the complainant lodged complain. The O.PNo.2 though noticed has been sent through R.P. post the O .PNo.2 could not appear in this case and became ex-parte.

   4.The point for determination in this case is whether the complainant is a consumer against  the O.P.s and whether any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice has been  caused   to  the complainant.

      5. There is no dispute between the parties the complainant has purchased the said LED TV on payment for Rs`12,000/- and the O.P. No1 had granted a receipt in favour of the complainant. As such the complainant is a consumer against the O.Ps.The complainant  filed the Xerox copy of  consumer guidelines and the warranty paper of the  O.PNo.1 admits in his counter that  the complainant has approached him   for rectification of defects in the said T.V.The O.P.No.1 also further advised  that he had been admitted the complainant to report same  defectiveness of the TV in company toll free number. The defectiveness 0f the said TV was just after four months of the purchase. The O.PNo. 2kept silent which forced the complainant of filed this case before this forum. As the O.P.No.2 did not appear in this case we presume that   the has nothing to say regarding complain of the complainant

   Taking into consideration of the case of the complainant documents submitted  filed be hum  and submission made by the O.Ps we allow the case of the complainant and direct the O.PNo.2 to replace the  defective or  pay the price value of the LED TV within one month form the date of this order, failing which the  complainant is at liberty to take steps against the complainant for  carrying out of the order. The case against O.PNo.1 is dismissed without cost.  This case is disposed of accordingly.

     Order pronounced in the open court under the seal and signature of the forum this the 28th day of Febraury,2017.