Haryana

Gurgaon

CC/310/2013

Nitin Kumar Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Infiniti Retail Ltd. etc. - Opp.Party(s)

07 May 2014

ORDER

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001.

                                                                                           Consumer Complaint No.310 of 2013                                                                                                                                      Date of Institution: 13.09.2013                                                                                                                                              Date of Decision: 05.08.2015

Nitin Kumar Gupta, 19-C, Second Floor, Sector-40, Gurgaon, Haryana.

 

                                                                                        ……Complainant.

 

                                                Versus

 

1. The Managing Director, Infinite Retail Ltd, Croma, 202 Akruti Centre Point, MITC, Andheri, Mumbai.

 

2. The Managing Director, Sony India Pvt. Ltd, A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

 

 

3. The Manager, Croma-DLF Mega Mall, Shop No.1, Upper Ground Floor, DLF City Phase-I, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon-122002.

  ..Opposite parties

                                                                            

                                               

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                  

 

BEFORE:     SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.

                     SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

 

 

Present:        Sh. Anjaneya Mishra, Adv for the complainant.

                    Ms. Rachna Advocate for OP-2

                    OP-1 & 3 exparte

 

ORDER       SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.       

 

 

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he has purchased Sony LED 107 cm KDL-42W800 3D from the opposite party No.3 on 05.05.2013 by making a payment of Rs.79,900/- vide Invoice No.SLF02A050010037212 dated 05.05.2013 (Ann-1). OP-2 is the manufacturer of said product. The delivery of the product and installation was done on 06^th May, 2013. He was surprised to see the nameplate on supplied product as SONY LCD TV and not the LED TV which he has ordered and made payment. He immediately informed opposite party no.1 and 2 through email dated 07.05.2013 about the wrong delivery of the product but surprisingly both the opposite parties were even  not ready to accept  their mistake. In reply to letter dated 09.07.2013 opposite party no.1 replied on 31.07.2013 that there was no disparity in the product dispatched. OP-2 also relied on 31.07.2013 that in some of the models in BRAVIA range, panel uses CCFL backlight technology. In some other display panel uses LED backlight technology. Opposite party no.2 said that display penal of model KDL-42W800A contains LED backlight module and this is mentioned in specification on their website. They also offered the refund of the purchase value if the complainant does not want to retain the set only for the classification that he was expecting. Thus, it is alleged that the opposite parties have supplied a different product. The opposite parties have adopted unfair trade practice by selling a different product. He prayed that the opposite parties be directed to deliver a correct product i.e. 3D LED TV as mentioned in the Invoice/Bill. He also claimed compensation of Rs.10 Lacs. The complaint is supported with an affidavit  and the documents placed on file.

2                 OP-2 in its written reply has alleged that complainant has purchased Sony LED TV bearing Model No.KDL-42W800A on 05.05.2013 after satisfying himself with the features of the LED from opposite party no.3. However, opposite party no.2 received an email dated 07.05.2013 from the complainant that the product delivered at his residence was different from the one he purchased from OP-3. The email stated that the complainant had purchased  LED TV while the back panel of the TV delivered to him bore the words LCD. OP-2 replied to the above referred email clarifying that all LCD and LED TV models marked by OP-2 bear the product prescription “LCD colour Television”. Further email explained that these televisions are manufactured using two kinds of Backlights namely “CCFL” and “LED”. Televisions with CCFL Backlight are commonly referred to as “LCD TV” and those with LED Backlight are referred to as “LED TV”. This nomenclature is used to help consumers differentiate between the two and make their purchase decision. However, from a technical standpoint, both are LCD TVs. Subsequent to the filing of the present complaint the opposite party at the risk of losing a valuable customer sent a letter dated 22.02.2014 to the complainant offering refund of LED but the complainant refused to accept the said offer. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.2

3                 OP-1 & 3 failed to turn up despite service and were proceeded exparte on 28.10.2013.

4                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file.

5                 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as well as written arguments, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency of service on its part on the ground that the opposite parties supplied SONY LCD TV in place of SONY LED TV to the complainant. On his persistent request they failed to  replace the SONY LED TV and thus, opposite parties are deficient in providing services to the complainant.

6                 However the contention of the opposite party no.2 is that all LCD and LED TV models marked by OP-2 bear the product prescription “LCD colour Television”. These televisions are manufactured using two kinds of Backlights namely “CCFL” and “LED”. Televisions with CCFL Backlight are commonly referred to as “LCD TV” and those with LED Backlight are referred to as “LED TV”. This nomenclature is used to help consumers differentiate between the two and make their purchase decision. However, from a technical standpoint, both are LCD TVs.

The complainant remained adamant on his stand that the Television delivered to him was not LED TV and was an LCD TV without understanding that all Bravia Televisions marketed by the opposite party are LCDs and the difference is of the backlight. OP-2 also offered the price of the said product but he refused to accept the same.

7                 Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and documents placed on record and the offer made by the opposite party no.2 to refund the purchase value of LED, we are of the opinion that it will meet the ends of justice if the opposite party no. 1 & 2 are  directed to refund the price of the LED TV. Thus, the opposite party no. 1 & 2 are  directed to refund the price of the LED i.e. Rs.79,900/- with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 13.09.2013  till realization. However, there is no case of deficiency of service is made out as the opposite party has immediately offered the refund of the price of the LED. The complainant is also entitled to cost of litigation Rs.3100/-. OP-1 & 2 shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  However, complainant shall return the LCD to the opposite parties No.1 & 2. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.

 

Announced                                                                                                        (Subhash Goyal)

05.08.2015                                                                                                                President,

                                                                                                                District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                   Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

 

 

(Jyoti Siwach)       

Member