Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/3/2022

Manoranjan Hota, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Reliance Retails Ltd. (Online Store-Reliance Digital) - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2023

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint Case No.- 3/2022

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

 

Manoranjan Hota,

Matruvihar, Near Grampanthi Temple

Danipali, Budharaja,

Sambalpur, Odisha-768004                         ...………..Complainant/Applicant

                                                Versus

1. Reliance Retails Ltd. (Online Store-Reliance Digital)

C/O-Dadhichi Education Trust

Vidya-Vihar Plot No.3, Mauza

Village-Deuli, Ps-Olatpur,

Cuttack, Odisha-754010

2. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.

A-18, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate

Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044

3. Royal services

Khata No. 142, Plot No.-510/3086

At-Charbhati Chowk, Po/Dist-Sambalpur

Odisha-768001                                           …………...Opp.Parties

 

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :-       Self
2. For the O.P No.1                :-       Exparte
3. For the O.P No.2 & 3         :-      Sri. M.Kumar & Associates

 

Date of Filing:22.03.2022,Date of Hearing :06.12.2022Date of Judgement : 30.01.2023

Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President

1. The Case of the Complainant is that on 03.05.2021 the Complainant purchased a Sony LED TV Model KD 49X8000H vide Sl. No. 8010327 online through O.P.NO.1 amounting to Rs. 69,229/- against invoice No. D21R-201100930223 dated 04.05.2021. The technician installed after 2 days. On 02.12.2021 the Complainant noticed a line of scratch on the LED TV on the very next day i.e. 03.12.2021 and lodged a complaint before O.P. No.2 & 3 vide reference No. 068-373-523. The O.P. No.2 advised the Complainant and on 04.12.2021 details of product provided through mail to the O.P. No.2.

The O.P. No.3 after few days came and inspected the LED TV on the complaint given. The technician of O.P. No.2 & 3 after touching outer panel found no scratch or line from outer area and told this might have some thread like substance from internal side. The technician repeatedly touched the outer panel, took some photographs and walked away. Again after few days two technicians of O.P. No.2 & 3 inspected and tried to divert the mind of Complainant saying no issues in the LED TV. The Complainant lodged a complaint in National Consumer Helpline on 09.12.2021 bearing complain No. 3149508 but it was in vain.

The Complainant thereafter contracted the customer care of O.P. No.2 who advised for refund of product value. The O.P. No.2 demanded Rs. 23,990/- to-wards repairing charges.

Being aggrieved this complaint has been filed.

2. The O.P. No.2 & 3 in their version submitted that the Complainant purchased the product from O.P. No.3 and the standard warranty was for one year. The Complainant approached the O.P. No.3 on 18.05.2021 first time for non-connectivity of Bluetooth to the TV Set. The Authorised service centre promptly attended and issued job sheet No. J10871221 dated 18.05.2021. On 09.06.2021 the Complainant again raised the same issue of non-connectivity of Bluetooth and the said service was undertaken by job sheet No. J10956464. The O.P. No.3 duly informed the Complainant that direct Bluetooth connectivity is not available in the TV Set model and use of third party application for Bluetooth connection with a Home Theatre is required to avail the said facility and closed the complaint on 09.06.2021, it is within the knowledge of the Complainant.

On 02.12.2021 the Complainant lodged complaint before O.P. No.2 & 3 with the service request that a line of scratch has appeared on TV Set. The technician of O.P. No.3 inspected and Job sheet No. J12238965 dated 06.12.2021 was issued and it was found that the polarizer was worm-out-due to external cause and needs replacement. The Complainant was not satisfied and adamant that the line of scratch is intentionally placed. The service engineer of O.P. No.3 again inspected the TV with polarization sheet, depicting that the scratch is on the outer surface of the TV screen indicating that the same has been caused due to external impact, photographs were also taken.

The initial estimate cost of repair service Rs. 23,990/- was shared with the Complainant as it not covered under warranty. The Complainant requested for FOC panel replacement of the TV and the refund amount.

Upon receipt of complaint number 3149508 dated 09.12.2021 the O.P. No.2 to the Complainant that LCD panel has been found damaged due to external use and need replacement. Estimate of Rs. 23,990/- was given to the Complainant. As a valued customer the estimate was revised to Rs. 17,435/- When no any response received from complainant the O.Ps vide e-mail dated 31.12.2021 closed the service request. The Complainant not co-operated and refused to adhere to the advice of experts. The O.Ps cited Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs Birendra Narain Prasad & others, 2011(2) C.P.C manufacturing defects in the product case. The O.Ps are not deficient in their service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant and O.Ps. The Complainant has filed the warranty Card, receipt of the article dated 04.05.2021, mail dated 04.12.2021 of customer care unit mail dated 06.12.2021 of the Complainant giving the details of the product, mail dated 09.12.2021, 23.12.2021. The O.Ps filed some photographs of the product, Estimate of Rs. 23,990/- and discount price Rs. 18,515/- mail dated 23.12.2021.
4. The main allegation of the Complainant is that when he noticed the scratch on 02.12.2021, on 03.12.2021 made a complaint to O.P. No.2 & 3 vide reference No. 068-373-523. Photographs and did not take any step. On 09.12.2021 in National Consumer Helpline Complaint No. 3149508 was filed. In the other hand O.Ps submitted that the scratch is due to an external impact and warranty is not covered, estimated Rs. 23,990/- repairing cost and after revised to Rs. 17,435/-. The Complainant did not agree rather demanded for panel replacement of the TV and refund of the amount.

Perused the estimate submitted by O.P. No.2 & 3. Part code A.5013877A namely P-MOD-YS9F049HNG02, HSN Code 85299090 price Rs. 18,515/- was to be replaced by the O.Ps and as per version it does not cover warranty. Complainant alleged that technicians touched the outer panel repeatedly, took some photographys. The O.P. No.2 & 3 not specified the product in the estimate nor submitted any inspection report of the product. The warranty card also did not disclose whether the particular product covers warranty or not. The Complainant has every right to know about the defects in a product but the technicians of O.P. No.2 & 3 kept the Complainant in darkness and have given impression the defect is due to external cause. Suppression of material facts amount to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.2 & 3. Accordingly, it is ordered:

 

6698606.  

The complaint is allowed on contest against the O.P. No.2 & 3. The O.P. No.2 & 3 are jointly and severally liable to replace the defective part P-MOD-ys9F049HNG02 of the LED TV Model KD49X8000H and bring the TV in running condition within one month of this order. In case of non-compliance the O.P. No.2 & 3 are liable to pay cost of the product Rs. 69,229/- for harassment compensation of Rs. 40,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The amount will carry 7 % interest from date of filing till realisation.

Order pronounced in open court on this 30^th Jan. 2023.

Supply free copies to the parties.