Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant purchased one VIERA LCD TV (THL 42 U5D), a Panasonic product on 05.10.2012 to play some movies through the USB as it was advertised/displayed in their webpage and complainant learnt from the said webpage that the said model is capable of playing AVI among other formats and then complainant decided to purchase the same having been confirmed and assured by the op no.1 and relying upon their representations at the time of purchase.
But complainant after installation and use found that TV showed all AVI files an unsupported while trying to play the movies pursuant to his choice, as such he could not play the movies for which the TV was purchased and it will be relevant to mention that the webpage of the Panasonic which has impressed the complainant to purchase the TV was sent to the op no.2 through email on 16.10.2012 as reminder and for their perusal.
Thereafter complainant sent an email on 14.10.2012 to the op no.1 seeking their assistance to get rid from the trouble and thereafter several reminders/mails were sent to the ops and every time it was assured by the representatives of the op nos. 1 & 2 to provide him for a solution but all were in vain. Subsequently the representation of the authorized service center of the Co. M/s. Jyotsna Electronics visited the place of the complainant to find out the status and checked the TV set and the engineer of the op took the pen drive of the complainant with some movies on it to check it out at their workshop but the complainant understood that the movies on the pen drive are playing on the 42U5D sets. The said technician tried to change the format of the movies on the said pen drive to make it compatible for playing on his TV set but failed.
Subsequently the service technician, Mr. Goutam Biswas visited the house of the complainant twice for checking the TV set to solve the problem but failed and admitted to the complainant that there seems a problem in the TV having inherent defect and thus he submitted the report to the op no.2. Subsequently by an e-mail dated 14.02.2013 op no.2 informed the complainant that they have advised their service team to investigate the matter and to resolve the problem but nothing has been done from their end as yet. Thereafter one Mr. Asit Mondal, the service enginner visited the house of the complainant but no effective steps were taken by him to solve the problem although assured to rectify the same at an early date.
Thereafter on 03.04.2013 the officer of the op no.2 stated while clarifying the problem that the video formats and the model rate of the TV set are not uniform which is inconsistent and contradictory with the specification/advertisement published in the website of the company. Practically op nos. 1 & 2 failed to resolve its problem for proper functioning during the warranty period which shows their strong non-cooperation and malafide intention and which tantamounts to gross deficiency of service on their part for rendering the proper service.
Complainant sent a legal notice through his advocate on 30.09.2013 under Speed Post registered with A/D requesting them either to replace the TV set to the complainant within 7 days from the date of receipt or to remove the defect. Thereafter another reminder was made to op. But op on receipt of the same did not respond and as such complainant as consumer being deceived and not getting such proper service for proper redressal has filed this complaint and for compensation etc.
On the other hand op no.1 by filing written statement submitted that practically there is no allegation against the op no.1 and truth is that op no.1 always maintains a goodwill of the organization and although provides services to his customer to his satisfaction and in the present case also op has provided services to his complainant and the allegation as made by the complainant is completely false and fabricated and fact remains that the service center or company did not give proper service within warranty period, so they are liable and the present complaint against op no.1 is not tenable.
But op no.2 by filing written statement submitted that in the instant case complainant purchased the said TV being manufactured by op no.2 no doubt and that was purchased on 05.10.2012 as per his choice and same was duly delivered to the complainant within due time by the seller. It is further alleged that the alleged defect has not been caused due to improper functioning of the said machine but for the video format that is being tried to be played thereon and the answering op further draws the attention of the Ld. Forum that since its introduction in the early 90s, new computer video techniques have been introduced, which the original AVI specification did not anticipate and as such following uncertainties and ambiguities remained in the AVI format itself and AVI does not provide a standardized way to encode aspect ratio information with the result that players cannot select the right aspect ratio automatically.
Moreover AVI was not intended to contain video using any compression technique that requires access to future video frame date beyond the current frame and AVI cannot contain some specific types of variable bitrate (VBR) date reliable (such as MP3 audio at sample rates below 32 kHz) and overhead for AVI files at the resolutions and frame rates normally used to encode standard definition feature films is about 5MB per hour of video, the significance of which varies with the application.
In the present circumstances, op submitted that the alleged problem is not the defect of the manufacturing defect and if the complainant gets the video converted in the formats the said machine supports the said can be easily played and watched. The complainant with malafide intention to harass the answering op and get undue benefit of the C.P. Act and in the above circumstances the complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
After proper study of the complaint and written version and also considering the advertisement on the basis of which complainant purchased the same it is clear that complainant purchased the same VIERA LCD TV (THL 42 U5D) being satisfied the purpose shall be served and he shall be able to enjoy the AVI many other form. But it is admitted by the op no.2 the manufacturer that in the said TV set the said facilities are not available because the system of the present purchase TV is completely separate and AVI is not intended to contain video using any compression technique that requires access to future video frame date beyond the current frame and op no.2 the manufacturer has admitted that it is not a defect, it is one type of system and if complainant wants to get the video converted in the formats the said machine supports the said can be easily played and watched.
So, considering the written version of the op and their argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer it is clear that the present TV set does not support AVI playing among other formats. But truth is that complainant purchased the same as per advertisement that it will support AVI and some other features. But ultimately op no.2 has admitted that this set does not support the same. So, considering that fact it is clear that the advertisement as made by the op no.2 is completely misleading and if at the time of purchase op no.1 would express that the present set shall not support AVI and other formats in that case complainant must not have to purchase such a TV set because at a cost of Rs. 41,990/-.
Most interesting factor is that complainant reported the same to the ops but ops’ mechanic/engineer went there again and again and checked the up but failed to give any satisfactory answer and ultimately opined that this present TV set is not fit for enjoying AVI and other facilities. Even initially ops particularly op no.2 had their liability to replace the same or to make that set defect free for enjoying but that had not been done.
Anyhow at the time of argument Ld. Lawyer for the op submitted that XBID Codec with decoder is fixed with the said TV set, the complainant shall have to get such benefit. But we have failed to understand why after purchasing a new TV set, the AVI facilities shall not be available in such a TV when in the advertisement there was specification that AVI support is there. This it is clear that op no.2 for the purpose of selling such item mislead the public and sold the same and ultimately the present complainant being misled by the advertisement of the op purchased it and got a different type of TV set with the help of which the complainant is unable to get or enjoy AVI facility and op no.2 has admitted that the set AVI was not given any facilities for AVI enactment and other formats. Then it is proved that manufacturer Panasonic Company asserted the public and sold the TV set at a cost of Rs. 41,990/- through their dealer op no.1.
But it is no doubt unfair trade practice and such practice should be stopped by the Panasonic Company and fact remains that the op no.1 also did not disclose that AVI facilities is not there. But it has become a practice of the dealer/retailer/seller not to disclose any non-capability of such certain items of that particular TV because it is their intention to sell the TV but they are not there for satisfaction of the complainant and in the present case also op no.2 as manufacturer have their social responsibility and liability as corporate social responsibility to satisfy the customer or to satisfy the customer as his criteria to be served to the purchaser.
In this case complainant purchased this TV no doubt on payment of Rs. 41,990/- on 05.10.2012 from Great Eastern Trading Company a dealer of the Op Company but said dealer also suppressed that fact. So, considering all the above fact and circumstances we are convinced to hold that op nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the complainant about the service for which the present TV set was purchased and invariably in this regard no extra machines or devices shall not be tagged with the present set by the ops. But ops shall have to satisfy the complainant by using this present VIERA LCD TV (THL 42 U5D) that AVI and other formats are available in the present TV set. If ops failed to do that in that case ops shall have to replace the present Panasonic set and delivered the TV set which shall be given all sorts of satisfaction in respect of using the TV set by the complainant and if ops jointly and severally failed to satisfy the complainant’s requirement through TV in that case op nos. 1 & 2 shall have to refund the entire amount in respect of paying the said set from the complainant.
Fact remains that in this case complainant purchased the same on 05.10.2012 but the present complaint was filed on 14.02.2014. Fact remains that during the period of dissatisfaction as expressed by the complainant to the ops it was within the warranty period. But ops did not pay any heed to that only for the purpose of bypassing the complainant and for waiting for the expiry of the warranty period. It is also a fact that even after purchase of the said TV set tax at a cost of Rs. 41/- he was unable to use the same that is he failed to get any player of AVI among other formats. So no doubt complainant has been denied justice service and all sorts of avenues of the warranty periods from the ops. Son ops are found negligent and deficient in rendering their service as per warranty period. At the same time they have also compelled the complainant to appear before this Forum and for which complainant suffered mental pain, financial loss at the same time he has failed to get any service from the said TV after investing of Rs. 41,990/-. But ops showed their back always. But as dealer and manufacturer it is their corporate social responsibility to give satisfaction to the purchaser/consumer and if it is not given by the dealer or the manufacturer, it is no doubt an unfair trade practice and fact remains in this case unfair trade practice has been adopted by the op nos. 1 & 2 in selling knowing fully well that the said AVI cannot be played. But surprising factor is that it was sold. So, it is no doubt deceitful manner by selling such TV set by the op for which they are also bound to pay cost and compensation etc.
Accordingly the complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the ops with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- each.
Op nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally hereby directed to make that TV the suitable for playing of AVI and other formats as per requirement of the complainant and if it is not possible then they shall have to handover a new set as per his choice and if it is not possible for the both ops in that case op nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally shall have to refund the entire amount of the said TV set of Rs. 41,990/- within 15 days from the date of this order and also shall have to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- i.e. Rs. 5,000/- each for each op for harassing the complainant for not rendering proper service and for selling such set by publishing misleading advertisement about the feature of the said set by the ops and accordingly ops jointly and severally shall have to pay total sum of Rs. 61,990/- within 15 days to the complainant failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order, op shall have to pay penal interest at the rate Rs. 400/- per day and till full satisfaction of the decree and if the penal interest is collected same shall be deposited to this Forum’s account.
For adopting unfair trade practice by adopting misleading advertisement/by selling such article which has no such facilities though it is published in the advertisement op nos. 1 & 2 are hereby directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- each as penal damages to the account of this Forum and it is imposed to check their unfair trade practice and deceitful manner of selling and trading and at the same time for publishing misleading advertisement to misled the customers, op nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally are hereby directed to comply the order very strictly within the stipulated period failing which penal action shall be started against both ops for which they shall be imposed further penalty and fine as per provision u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986.
