PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.- 182/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Pradip Kumar Padhi

S/O-Late Rajendra Kumar Padhi,

President Sarvajanina Durga Puja Committee

At- Govindtola Po- Dhanupali

Dist- Sambalpur Odisha Pin- 768005                                     ......Complainant

-Vrs

1. Reliance Retails Limited Regd Office, Reliance Digital

3 Rd Floor, Lokamany Tilak Marg Dhobi Talao,

Mumbai Pin- 400002

2. Reliance Retails Limited Reliance Dx Mini

Authorized Dealer Reconnect Mouza- Dhanupali,

Plot No-58 Govindtola, Sambalpur, Odisha Pin- 768005

3. Reliance Retails Limited Reliance Digital,

Autorized Dealer Reconnect At- Budharaja,

Sambalpur Dist- Sambalpur, Odisha, Pin-768001

4. Reconnect (Private Lebel)

Reliance Digital, Regd Office At 3^rd Floor,

Lokamanya Tilak Marg,

Dhobi Talao, Mumbai-400002.                            …………….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Anupama Ghussi & Associates
2. For the O.P. s                      :- Sri. S.K. Patjoshi & Associates

Date of Filing:17.10.2023,  Date of Hearing :02.04.2024  Date of Judgement : 13.05.2024

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant filed the case alleging deficiency in service and illegal Trade Practice cheating to the customer and using deceptive techniques to grab the hard-earned money of consumer and also for unnecessary harassment to the Complainant. The Complainant is the President and authorized person of the Durga Puja Committee of Govindtola, Sambalpur who has booked a brand new Smart LED TV of 32 inch on dtd. 15^th August 2023 of a from the OP No. 3. The OP No. 2 is an authorized branch of Reliance Digital Store. The Complainant has received the TV on 17^th August 2023 from OP No. 2 by paying Rs. 8,990/-to the OP. The Complainant has fixed the TV at his Durga Puja Committee office at Govindtola but on dtd. 23^rd August 2023 one thin line appears in the display which gradually became thick on dtd 24^th August and ultimately one side of the TV totally got black. After the complaint being made to the customer care of the OP No.1, 2 and 3 , the customer care has ensured that their technician will visit for inspecting the said problem. Accordingly the technician has made a visit for inspection of the same on dtd. 25.08.2023 and told to the Complainant that there are some defects found inside the TV and the LED is damaged but there are no sign of any kind of physical damage or mark in the TV. The technician at first said that no warranty can be given for damage but advised the Complainant that as the product is within warranty period and there is no sign of damage here the OP must exchange the product or will change the said part due to which problems have found but nobody came for repairing the same, this kind of negligent approach of the OPs amounts to grave deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
2. The Version of the OPs is that after few days the Complainant made a complaint regarding the functioning of the TV. The technician of the OP visited and inspected the TV and reinstalled the software to the satisfaction of the Complainant. Again after few days the Complainant raised another complaint. Accordingly technician visited the Complainant’s place and after inspection found physical damage in the TV set. The same was accordingly informed to the customer. Physical damage does not fall under any warranty. Hence the Complainant was informed about the charges for the repair of the physical damage done to the product from the Complainant’s side. Hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs.
3. After going through the records, evidences and submission of parties, it is observed that the TV was installed on 17^th August 2023 but on 23^rd August 2023, the LED TV shown problem. Taking a common plea by the OPs of physical damage, the OPs have not repaired the LED TV. Further the OPs have not given any proper evidence including technician report which proved the physical damage of the LED TV. Further the photographs submitted by the OPs is the actual LED TV of the Complainant or not, it is not cleared. As the problem was arised within the warranty period and after beginning of installation and the OPs have not solved the problem of the LED TV, It is deemed that the LED TV was having manufacturing defect. So, the OPs are deficient in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the O.Ps are liable for compensation.

                             ORDER

The case is disposed of on contest. The O.Ps are directed to refurd Rs. 8,990/- towards the cost of the product, Rs. 50,000/- towards negligence, deficiency in service as Compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost & litigation expenses of the petition to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 13^th day of May, 2024.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.