Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

The petitioner, M/s LG Electronics India (P) Ltd., in this Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has assailed the impugned order whereby the complaint case has been decided in favour of the Respondent No. 1.

The Respondent No. 1, attracted by the features of the subject Television Set being manufactured by the Appellant, purchased it from the Respondent No. 2.  However, when he faced connectivity problem between the television set and his laptop, he lodged complaint and acting on such complaint though technicians of the Respondents visited his residence and tried to fix the problem, all their endeavour proved futile.  In view of this, the complaint case was filed.

Following a contested hearing, the case was decided in favour of the Respondent No. 1.  Aggrieved with such decision, this Appeal is moved by the Appellant.

Due service of notice was effected upon both the Respondents.  However, on notice, only the Respondent No. 1 turned up before this Commission.  At the time of hearing, we heard the submission advanced by the contesting parties, viz., the Appellant and Respondent No. 1. We have also gone through the documents on record carefully.

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submitted that the laptop of the Respondent No. 1 did not support WIDI due to it’s old version and the Respondent No. 1 did not agree to upgrade the same either.  The technicians of the Appellant as well as the Respondent No. 2 visited the residence of the Respondent No. 1 immediately on receipt of call from him and tried to resolve the problem.  However, as the television set did not match the version of the laptop, and the Respondent No. 1 was reluctant to install the software through the laptop of the technicians, the problem could not be fixed.  Ld. Advocate claimed that, its technician successfully connected his laptop with the television set and did not encounter any problem while installing WIDI.  The laptop of the Respondent No. 1, he alleged, being not compatible to WIDI software, the problem remained unresolved.  Claiming that the subject television set is okay in all respects, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

It is curious to note that, in support of his above contention, not a single scrap of paper is advanced by the Ld. Advocate.  Needless to say, the relevant job sheets could throw better light in the matter.  For some obscure reasons, however, the Appellant refrained from furnishing the same.

In any case, it being a costly television set, we feel, the Appellant ought to highlight the compatibility aspect prominently in order to enable enthused customers take a judicious decision in the matter.

It is hardly believable that, when the technician of the Appellant approached the Respondent No. 1 for upgrading the system of his laptop to effect seamless connectivity, the Respondent No. 1 threw a spanner into such suggestion.  It appears, the concerned technician did not depose before the Ld. District Forum which could prove to be a step in the right direction in unearthing the inherent truth.

In this regard, we are inclined to quote a very significant finding of this Commission in Appeal No. A/905/2017.  Incidentally, the said Appeal was moved by the Respondent No. 2 on the self same matter.

“The technical competence of the TV as mentioned above was corroborated by the user guide embedded in the television set referring to therein the feature sharing wireless connection of the TV with a Laptop through WIFI connection after a software with intel@widi had been downloaded in the said Laptop.  The connectivity, however, could not be established as the subject software intel@widi was not downloaded in the Laptop of the Respondent No. 1/Complainant.  Downloading of the said software was not possible also as INTEL being the manufacturer of the said software withdrew the software from the market long before the subject television was purchased.  The matter was suppressed by the Respondent /O.P. No. 1 at the time of selling the subject TV.  User book embedded in the TV set was also found to be silent in this regard and Respondent/O.P. No. 2 did not display any customer friendly approach withdrawing its claim of the TV’s technical competence in absence of the subject software consequent upon withdrawal of the same from the market by its manufacturer”.

It appears that the said Appeal was allowed in part.  Since the present Appellant arises over self same matter, holding the Appellant guilty of resorting to unfair trade practice, we refrain from altering the order being passed in the Appeal bearing No. A/905/2017 in any manner whatsoever.  

Accordingly, the Appeal stands allowed in part.