PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                                                                       CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 91/2022

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Sri. Milap Pattnayak, aged about 40 years

S/O-Madhab Chandra Pattnayak

R/O- House No. L3/7, Kalyan Nagar

Po-Budharaja, Ps-Ainthapali,

Dist-Sambalpur-768004, Odisha.                                       ……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

1. The Authorised Officer, Raliance Digital Unit

At-Ainthapali Main Road (MZ-Unit 14, Danipali)

PO-Budharaja, Ps-Ainthapali, Dist-Sambalpur-768004, Odisha.

2. The Branch Manager, HDB Financial Services Ltd.
3.  

Nayapara, PO-Sambalpur, Ps-Town, Dist-Sambalpur-768001, Odisha.

3. SAMSUNG India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Regd. Office At-6^th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.

4. The Authorised Officer, ALRHOME Appliance Service Pvt. Ltd. (Authorised Service Center, Reliance resQ)

At-D-7, Saraswati Enclave, Infront of City Railway Station.

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                     :- Sri. Anil Kumar Sahoo & Associates
2. For the O.P. No.1                           :- Sri. S.K. Patjoshi & Associates
3. For the O.P. No.2 & 3                    :- Sri. S.K. Mohanty & Associates
4. For the O.P. No.4                           :- Ex-parte

Date of Filing:02.12.2022,Date of Hearing :18.12.2023,Date of Judgement : 05.02.2024

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant with intention to purchase a 55’’ LED TV having vide viewing angle and visited the O.P. No.1. on 26.10.2022. The O.P. No.2 financed the TV which cost Rs. 64,990/-. The O.P. No.1 assured the features, accordingly on 04.11.2022 the technical staff delivered and later on installed. The visiting staff, collected the installation code & happy code saying warranty of 30 days. On the same day i.e. 04.11.2022 the Complainant discovered that there was devoid of wide viewing angle feature. On repeated requested the O.Ps neither replaced nor exchanged the TV. Complaint No. 8055316144 was registered on 10.11.2022 but no result.

Being aggrieved complaint was filed.

2. The O.P. No.1 in its version submitted that the O.P. No.1 is the retailer. The product is, manufactured by Samsung Electronics. O.P. No.4 is the service providers. The answering O.P. admitted the facts of 55” Samsung QLED TV and its sale. The product is financed by O.P. No.2 but not arranged by O.P. No.1. There is no any deficiency on the part of O.P. No.1
3. The O.P. No.3 in its version submitted that there is no any specific allegation against O.P. No.3. There is no any manufacturing defect in the product QLED TV. The products are displayed in the show-room and the Complainant preferred to avail the same with free consent and choice. The Complainant has gone through the user manual and purchased the product with loaded features. There is no any deficiency on the part of the answering O.P.
4. Perused the documents filed by the parties. From job sheet No. 8055316144 it reveals that the product was having good picture quality but degrade while U.r. moving from 90 (straight angle) to side 110^o angle above. Not getting 100% quality from all angle. Kindly replace the unit. It was whitish in angle view. The O.P. No.1 in its version admitted the sale of 55” QLED TV product to the Complainant. The Complainant was interested for LED TV with wide viewing features whereas the O.P. No.1 has shown 55” Samsung QLED TV. The Complainant has raised the question of wide angle view in the TV. With salesmanship craft the O.P. No. sold the product to the Complainant, delivered the product but it was detected that wide feature is not with the product. The O.P. No.1 although with the product. The O.P. No.1 although a retailer/seller misused its position and affected the right to choice of the Complainant. There is no any manufacturing defect in the product nor any deficiency in service of the service provider. Accordingly, liability of O.P. No.2, 3 & 4 are not established.

The O.P. No.1 failed to provide the desired product to the Complainant which is the main dispute. The O.P. No.1 sold the product although the product has not any features of wide angle view, in the name of features having wide angle view. It amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in the part of O.P. No.1.

Accordingly, following order is passed:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed against the O.P. No.1 and dismissed against other O.Ps. The O.P. No.1 is directed to replace a Samsung TV 55” of same specification with wide angle view features to the Complainant within one month of this order replacing the 55” QLED TV failing which the O.P. No.1 shall be liable to pay Rs. 64990/- with 12% interest P.A. w.e.f 04.11.2022 to the O.P. No.2. For unfair trade practice and deficiency in service the OP. No.1 shall pay Rs. 25,000/- compensation and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-.

Order pronounced in the open court on 5^th day of Feb 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.