Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/15/2104

Mr. Sudip Datta, S/o Subodh Chandra Datta, - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

15 May 2019

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 31.12.2015

Disposed on: 15.05.2019

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027

 

 

CC.No.2104/2015

DATED THIS THE 15^th MAY OF 2019

 

 

PRESENT

 

 

 

 

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, B.A., LLB, MEMBER

 

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.Sudip Datta

S/o Subodh Chandra Datta,

G005, Ram Lake View

Apartment, 6A Cross,

Vishyajit Layout,

Vignana Nagar,

Bengaluru-75.

 

By Inperson

 

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

 

1. LG Electronics India Pvt. ltd.,

A Wing (3^rd Floor), D-3,

District Center Saket,

New Delhi-110017.

 

By Adv.Sri.Rajesh.A

 

2. The CEO/Rajeev Nair,

Future Retail Ltd.,

Knowledge House,

Shyam Nagar,

Off Jogeshwari-Vikroli

Link Road, Joshwari East,

Mumbai-400060.

 

By Adv.Sri.Deepak

 

3. The Branch Service Manager,

L G Electronics India Pvt. ltd., No.914, Sri Venkateshwara Complex, 80 feet Road,

6^th Block, Koramangala,

Bengaluru-95.

 

By Adv.Sri.Rajesh.A

 

4. E Zone Bengaluru -

Marathahalli, No.90/4,

Outer Ring Road,

Opp.Innovative Multiplex,

Marathahalli,

Bengaluru-37.

 

Ex-parte

 

ORDER

 

MEMBER: SMT.ROOPA.N.R

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party no.1/manufacturer, OP.2/retailer, OP.3/service centre, OP.4/retailer (herein after called as OPs), under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant prays to direct the OPs to refund the cost of the TV of Rs.1,61,406/- with interest at 18%; to refund the cost of the additional warranty of Rs.6,790/- with interest at 18%; to pay a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- towards mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards cost.                                                       

 

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under:

The Complainant submits that, he purchased LG 4K Smart LED TV (55inch model 55UB850T) on 27.12.14 from OP.4 along with 2 years additional warranty as advised. After installation, the Complainant noticed that the TV was a 740 hours used TV and two bright white spots were appeared in the bottom of the TV display panel. Upon his repeated requests, OP.4 replaced the TV with another TV, which also was already used 4 hours before reaching him. After noticing that 2^nd TV set also had some uneven bright glowing white patches on the display screen and because of white glowing patches over dark areas of the pictures, the quality of the picture was poor, the same was reported to both OP.3 and OP.4. OP.3 informed that all the LG LED TV display panels have this issue known as light leakage atleast 5%. But, in Complainant’s TV the issue exists around 40% to 50% of the total display area. Hence, the Complainant asked OP.3 & 4 to provide official document about this issue, but he has never received. After inspecting the TV, OP.4 confirmed that the light leakage issue exist and after long discussions promised to replace the TV. Few days later, OP.4 asked the Complainant to visit the showroom to see another TV set and to confirm whether he would take that TV. The Complainant requested that an expert to check the quality of the TV and provide him a brand new TV which has no issue. But OP.4 told to check himself. As the showroom very much illuminated, to figure out the quality of the TV, the Complainant requested to send it to his home to check its quality. But OP.4 refused rudely. Left with no other option, the Complainant came back with empty hands.

 

2b. The Complainant further submits that, he contacted the customer care of OP.4 and visited OP.3 about the issues many times, but all his efforts vent in vain. On 30.01.15, OP.3 sent SMS stating that, an alternate solution would be provided. On 04.02.15, OP.4 sent an email stating that “as per the analysis report, product is working with in specification and found to be OK’. However, he also mentioned that ‘if he is not satisfied with the product then LG offers a refund’. The Complainant in his reply on 10.02.15 explained all the issues in chronological order and requested to provide legitimate ‘specification’ that was published. He contacted LG customer care multiple occasions between 02.02.15 and 15.02.15 to escalate the issue, but they made false promises and informed him that they would found a solution but never responded to his calls again. Hence, he sent a letter dtd.12.03.15 to both corporate offices of OP.1 & 4 through RPAD. OP.4 wrote “to collect full refund as LG has suggested’ which didn’t happen as LG did not respond to any of his mails. Further also made multiple attempts to get resolved his issues with OPs that, to provide brand new TV with no issues or else to refund the amount, but all his efforts went in vain.

 

2c. The Complainant further submits that, despite of asking multiple occasions to Ezone, no action has been taken for the T24 recharge amount. Further also noticed that, hard disk drive provided with the TV does not work as the formats are not supported by LG TV; the NFC Tag is missing in 2^nd TV set pack. Being aggrieved by the act of the OPs, Complainant approached this forum.

 

3. Noticed served to OP.1 to 4. Though notice served, OP.4 did not appear before this forum, hence, placed exparte. The OP.1, 2 & 3 appeared before this forum and filed separate objections. OP.3 adopted the version of OP.1. In the objection, the OP.1 submits that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It admits in respect of the Complainant has purchased the said TV and due to misplacement of TV, the dealer has delivered the display TV and the same was replaced by the dealer with new brand TV to the Complainant and the same is functioning as specified by the OP and it is denied that 2^nd TV set was also used 4 hours before reaching the Complainant. The averments of the Complainant itself shows that there is no deficiency in service or any manufacturing defect in the said TV. OP.1 is manufacture of the said TV and there is no any fault in the said TV till 08.08.15 and the Complainant himself has registered the complaint with the OP for the problem of UHD connect not working. The experts of the OP has verified the TV and replaced the new hard disk, replacement done and found that the said TV functioning as specified by the OP. The Complainant has not at all raised the problem as alleged in respect of display light in the panel of said TV. The Complainant was an old customer of OP and he was brought TV during the year 2014 and end of its warranty period, he has raised a manufacturing defect in the said TV, even though there was no fault in the said TV. The OP has refunded the purchased amount on the request of the Complainant with an intention to maintain good relationships with their customer, even OP has approved for replacement of the TV.

 

3a. The OP.1 further submits that, after getting refund of the purchased amount, the Complainant, has purchased the TV in question. On 04.01.15, the complaint of the Complainant was attended by the OP and clarified the same, but the Complainant repeatedly contacted the OP in respect of the same issue. Hence, OP intimated that it was ready to offer refund of the purchased amount as goodwill gesture for customer satisfaction, even though their technical and quality team’s analysis report, said TV was working with in specification and found to be OK through email on 04.02.15. But the Complainant has not at all responded to the said communication and used the said TV without any complaint. Now the Complainant is trying to use the same method by creating the documents to believe the version of him to get refund of the amount or replacement of TV, even though there was no fault in the said TV by using the said TV for period of eight months. In respect of the complaint of connection problem, expert of the OP has visited the place of the Complainant and explained about networking connection and closed the said complaint. Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.

 

3b. In the objection, the OP.2 submits that, he is not aware of the fact that the 1^st TV set had run approximately for 740 hours. OP.2 is only a dealer and would deliver the sets in a sealed pack as received from OP.1. The technical aspects of the product would be dealt only by OP.1. The complaint received by OP.2 was forwarded to OP.1 for explanation and further needful action.  The Complainant requested OP.2 to investigate and replace the TV with a brand new TV. The OP.2 had contacted OP.1 and OP.1 agreed to replace the TV and accordingly, had delivered the TV to the Complainant. Whatever the complaints received, the OP.2 executives forwarded to OP.1 and were following it up with OP.1.

 

3c. The OP.2 further submits that, the 2^nd TV set was received from OP.1 and same has been issued and OP.1 confirmed on mail that the TV is fine to the Complainant. The Complainant reported that 2^nd set was also faulty, the same was escalated to OP.1 and they confirmed that there is no issue. However, they have agreed to replace only again if Complainant was not happy for 3^rd TV. OP.2 called the Complainant to store and opened another sealed unit in front of him and have given a complete demo as per his request. He also asked OP.2 to make entire store 100% dark with no lighting. He was taken to back office and switched off all lights and then played the TV. Only after being satisfied, he has taken delivery of the 2^nd TV. Therefore, it is submitted that the issue involved is between the OP.1 and the Complainant in so far as OP.2 is concerned all those precautions and necessary actions were taken by them in order to satisfy the customer. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it cannot be stated that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP.2. In fact, the executives of OP.2 had taken up the issue seriously with the manufacturer and the manufacturer has issued an email stating that the product is working fine with specifications, but however if the Complainant is not happy with the product performance, the OP.1 is ready and willing to refund the amount paid on the TV as a good will gesture. So far as the T24 talk time of Rs.101/-, the same was taken up with T24 team and they have done the same, by crediting the amount which was complementary. Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.

 

4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the Complainant and the OP.1, 2 & 3 have filed their affidavit reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and objections. Both have filed written arguments. The Complainant has produced documents which were marked. OP.2 produced one document. We have heard the arguments and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence scrupulously and posted the case for order.  

 

5. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

 

1. Whether the Complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.1 to 4, if so, whether he entitled for the relief sought for ?

 

2.  What order?

 

6. Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  In the affirmative

Point No.2:  As per the order below

 

REASONS

 

7. Point No.1: The undisputed facts reveal that the Complainant purchased LG 4K Smart LED TV (55inch model 55UB850T) dtd.27.12.14 from Ezone, Marathalli, Bengaluru for an amount of Rs.1,61,406/- and also purchased 2 years additional warranty for an amount of Rs.6,790/-. In support of this, the Complainant produced documents marked as Ex-A1to A3. It is clearly goes to show that the Complainant purchased the said LG TV from OP.4 for an amount of Rs.1,61,406/- and purchased additional warranty for Rs.6,790/-. This fact is not denied by the OPs. After the installation of TV by LG, the Complainant noticed that, the TV was 740 hours used TV and also noticed that two bright white spots appeared on the bottom of the TV display panel. As looking in to the documents marked as Ex-A4 to A7, it is clearly goes to show that, the TV was used one and some problems are there as alleged by the Complainant. After that, the Complainant informed to OP.4 and requested to investigate the issues to replace the TV. After some days, OP replaced the TV. This fact is also not denied by the OPs. The OP.1 submits that, in his version at para no.7 “It is true that the Complainant has purchased the said TV and due to misplacement of TV, the dealer has delivered the display TV and the same was replaced by the dealer with new brand TV to the Complainant.” It is admitted by the OP.1.

 

8. According to the Complainant, after the replacement of the TV, he noticed that the 2^nd TV set was also already used 4 hours before reaching him and also some uneven bright glowing white patches on the display screen. After that, the Complainant informed these facts to OP.4. The employee of OP.4 visited and inspected the TV and confirmed the existence of light leakage issue. After several rounds of long discussions, OP.4 promised that they will replace the faulty 2^nd TV set. As looking in to the documents marked as Ex-A8 in page no.3 email dtd.04.02.15, it is clearly goes to show that the OP was agreed to refund the amount. In document Ex-A8 page no.3, email dtd.04.02.15, the OP mentioned that “However, in case if you are not satisfied with the product, we shall offer you refund as goodwill gesture for customer satisfaction.” It is admitted facts. After several requests made by the Complainant, OP not responded.

 

9. As looking in to the document marked as Ex-A10 & A11, it is clearly shows that the Complainant contacted many times to LG customer care for the resolution, but OPs not responded. Under this terrified situation, OPs not co-operated, hence the Complainant wrote all the details with proofs through RPAD on 12.03.15. As looking in to the document marked as Ex-A12, it is clearly shows that, the OP.2 replied on 06.04.15, at page no.3 point 1 of the mail wrote as “To collect the full refund as LG has suggested.” The Complainant submits that, the OPs not responded further. It is clearly goes to show that, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.2 & 4 and OP.1 who is manufacturer not responded to the Complainant i.e. defect in the TV purchased by the Complainant, thereby there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.1 also. OP.3 is service centre, he is a formal party. There is no specific allegations against OP.3 and also no relief as against OP.3. Hence, we answered the point no.1 in the affirmative.

 

 10. Point no.2: In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

 

ORDER

 

The complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed holding that there is deficiency in service by the OP.1, 2 & 4.

 

2. The complaint against OP.3 is dismissed.

 

3. The OP.1, 2 & 4 jointly and severally are directed to refund the sum of Rs.1,61,406/- to the Complainant with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 27.12.14 till the date of realization.

 

4. The OP.1, 2 & 4 are further directed to refund Rs.6,790/- to the Complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.2,000/-.

 

5. This order is to be complied by the OP.1, 2 & 4 within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the Complainant is at liberty to take proper steps as per law.

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this, the 15^th day of May 2019)

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(PRATHIBHA.R.K)  PRESIDENT

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Sudip Datta, who being the Complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex-A1	Ezone Tax Invoice for TV dtd.27.12.14
Ex-A2	Ezone receipt for extended warranty dtd.28.12.14
Ex-A3	Ezone Tax Invoice for TV Insurance dtd.29.12.14
Ex-A4	Used TVs Screen shots picture – about TV
Ex-A5	TV Photographs 4 in No.s
Ex-A6 to A10	Emails dtd.07.01.15, 29.01.15, 09.02.15, 30.01.15, 16.05.15
Ex-A11	6 postal receipts
Ex-A12	Reply letter from Future Retail ltd., dtd.06.04.15
Ex-A13	Future Retail ltd., Tax Invoice dtd.19.06.13
Ex-A14	Screen Shot of L.G.Head Office address from website

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the OP/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.N.Thavamani, who being the Authorized Signatory of OP.1 & 3 was examined. 

Sri.Rajesh Kumar Gupta, who being the Deputy General Manager of OP.2 was examined. 

 

Copy of Documents produced on behalf of OP.2:

Doc.no.1

Emails dtd.31.01.15, 04.02.15

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(PRATHIBHA.R.K)  PRESIDENT