JUDGEMENT

          As per complaint, op no.1Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. is the manufacturer in respect of disputed 40” LED 3D Smart (Internet Enabled) TV having Model No. 40F6400 3D L Samsung and complainant purchased the same from op no.2.  After taking loan from op no.3, Bajaj Finance Ltd. at a cost of Rs. 76,000/- on 24.09.2013 but just after purchase during use of the same several defects were detected and there was a facility for enjoying the view flawless 3D effect and other facilities shall be enjoyed by the complainant and actually complainant failed to enjoy all the facilities from the said TV when this is a 3D set and the matter was reported to the op  but op failed to give proper relief to the complainant and service engineer visited the complainant’s place and he could not be able to solve the defect or problem of 3D LED TV and left by saying that he would send someone senior to look into this problem and there might be some defective parts which may require to be changed for resolution of the problem.

          After  that complainant reported that matter to Ezone from whom it was purchased and they did not give proper attention and did nothing.  After that again on 28.09.2013he again submitted a complaint and one Subhankar of Samsung company came but he also failed to resolve the problem and Samsung Customer Care Centre also failed to make the 3D LED TV set regular for enjoying 3D features and subsequently it was stated that 3D features cannot be enjoyed without speed of 8 Mbps whereas in the complainant home there is an average net download speed is 16 Mbps.  After that again complainant submitted complaint for making it usable and to enjoy the said set but op failed to give any satisfactory answer and ultimately the TV set is now in the house of the complainant and no service is being enjoyed by the complainant even after purchasing the same at a cost of Rs. 76,000/- and for more than 3 months it is lying defective TV set and practically for the negligent and deficient manner of service and for unfair trade practice, complainant has been suffered and is being harassed till now and op did not take any step for which complainant lodged a complaint to CA & FBP, Kolkata East Suburban Regional Office and said office authority called a meeting on 10.12.2013 at 3:00 PM for mediation but op did not turn up for which complainant filed a complaint as per direction of CA & FBP and complainant was compelled to file this complaint for redressal.

          In this case op no.3 Bajaj Finance Ltd. submitted that they only granted loan of Rs. 75,720/- for the purchase of Samsung LED TV monthly installment was fixed at Rs. 5,048/- without any interest except this op no.3 has no liability.  But complainant is not paying the said EMIs and it is nothing but to abuse of process from the part of the complainant and for harassing the op no.3 so the complaint should be dismissed against op no.3.

          On the other hand op no.1 Samsung Manufacturer Company by filing written statement submitted that no doubt complainant submitted 3 / 4 complaints just after purchase at about non-functioning of the 3D LED TV and the engineers of the op no.1 found that the features of 3D explorer, the feature will only work in the Internet speed of 32 MBPS connection and it is also admitted that op no.1 received 3 / 4 complaints and attended the same which was described to the complaint and without such 32 MBPS connection the said 3D LED TV Explorer cannot be viewed.  So, it is not the fault on the part of the op and for which op no.1 has submitted that this complaint is false and there was no laches, defect in respect of the said set and for which the complaint should be dismissed.

          Whereas Ezone Kankurgachi op no.2 has not filed any written statement and has not contested this case accordingly the case against op no.2 is heard exparte form and now at this stage the case should be decided the entire consumer dispute and came to a conclusion for determining the dispute.

                                                         Decision with reasons

          Admittedly after considering the argument of Ld. Lawyers of both the parties including the complaint, it is clear and admitted fact that complainant purchased one 40” LED 3D TV Smart (Internet Enabled TV) namely Model No. 40F6400 3D L Samsung on 24.09.2013 from op no.2 and same was delivered to the complainant on the same evening and at the time of installing, the installer was unable to start the said 3D option in the said set but that was found not in normal position even for a second attempt in the said LED 3D TV set.  But after sometimes when the matter was reported to the op no.1, their service engineer went there and found that but they could not be able to solve the 3D problem in view of the fact 32 MBPS speed of internet is highly required.  But it is not available to run in the complainant’s house.  It is also fact that at the time of selling the same this problem was not disclosed by the seller op no.2 or the service engineers of the op no.1 or any member of the op no.2.  But op no.2 sold it informing that they must not have to face any trouble as it is very scientifically developed model.  But after installation it was detected that only 16 MBPS connection is in the house of the complainant.  But Internet 32 MBPS speed connection is not there, so the said set is not operating and it is the admitted version of op no.1.  Then question is why at the time of selling the same to the complainant op no.2 did not report about that this set that could not be worked if Internet speed 32 MBPS connection is not in his house and that complication was not disclosed by the op and no doubt it is an unfair trade practice on the part of the op no.2 as a dealer of op no.1 and situation is such that it is impossible for the complainant to get Internet Speed of 32 MBPS from any corner because its payment is very high and for a middle class person it is not possible to maintain it but truth is that in the house of complainant Internet connection speed is 16 MBPS.  So, it was the duty of the op no.2 at the time of selling to report that such a set shall not work against Internet connection speed of 16 MBPS but that was not stated. 

          So, it is clear that there was no fault on the part of the complainant at the time of purchasing the said set at a cost of Rs. 76,000/- and truth is that complainant took loan from op no.3 with hope that the present shall have to give several facilities if the set is installed as stated by op no.2 and considering all the above fact and materials, it is clear that in any circumstances the set cannot be used by the complainant when there is no Internet speed connection of 32 MBPS and for which as per admitted version of the op no.1, the said TV is not functioning and even it is clear that complainant has not got the benefit of purchasing the scientific set also for want of any internet connection speed of 32 MBPS and it is not possible for the complainant as a general purchaser to take such connection against payment of huge amount per month.

          After considering the system of the said set it is clear that very rich persons generally purchases it who have their internet speed connection of 32 MBPS and it is the duty of the seller at the time of selling item to any person to inform the purchaser that such a set cannot work if internet connection with speed 32 MBPS is not there and in this case no doubt op no.2 as dealer and seller no doubt deceived the complainant and sold it for his own business purpose and if complainant would be informed about that technicalities in that case complainant as a computer engineer must not have to purchase it by paying such a big amount after taking loan.

          No doubt the purpose of purchasing the said set by the complainant has been frustrated for adopting unfair trade practice by the op no.2.  Truth is that at this stage there is no scope to operate the set by the complainant because complainant has no financial capacity to take such internet line of 32 MBPS speed as his present connection is only 16 MBPS.  So, under any circumstances the said set cannot be used by the complainant and for which no doubt op no.2 is responsible and for which for unfaithful act for adopting unfair trade practice op no.2 complainant has been deceived.  Fact remains op nos. 1 & 2 are jointly liable because op no.2 has sold it as dealer of op no.1 and invariably it was the duty of op no.2 to disclose about the use of the set with the help of what speed of internet connection but that has not been stated.  So, op no.2 deceived the complainant for which complainant has practically thrown into dustbin after spending of Rs. 76,000/- and for which no doubt op nos. 1 & 2 jointly are responsible for that and for the above reasons we find that laches are on the part of the op nos. 1 & 2 and invariably op nos. 1 & 2 shall have to compensate for that and complainant has no financial capacity to take internet connection of 32 MBPS speed and the whole complication was created by the op no.2 the dealer of the op no.1 and for which op nos. 1 & 2 jointly responsible for that and in fact there is no question of replacing the same because even if another new one is replaced the same problem must be found in another set so we find that purpose of the complainant for purchasing of the said TV has been frustrated due to unfair trade practice as adopted by the dealer of op no.1 i.e. op no.2 and for which we are directing the op nos. 1 & 2 to refund the entire amount of Rs. 76,000/- after receiving the said set from the complainant within one month from the date of this order and also to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for compensation for harassing and for adopting unfair trade practice by the op no.2 and practically a simple engineer of computer science has been deprived by the op no.2 and in fact op no.2 has been selling such sort of goods only for the purpose of making profit but not considering his social responsibility to inform the purchaser whether such a set will run in the particular house in absence of internet connection speed of 32 MBPS or not.  It is common practice not to sale such type of Scientific goods for which many persons are being deprived and in this case for laches and negligent and deficient manner and also by adopting unfair trade practice of the op No.2, complainant has been harassed and deceived for which complaint succeeds against op nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally with cost.

          Hence, it is

                                                           ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against op no.1 with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- and same is allowed exparte against op no.2 with cost of Rs. 10,000/- but same is dismissed against op no.3 without any cost.

          Op nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally are hereby directed to refund the entire amount of Rs. 76,000/- of the said TV to the complainant after collecting the said set from the complainant on proper receipt by the op no.2 at ops cost and the said amount shall be paid by the op no.2 at present to the complainant within one month from the date of this order and if op no.2 does not comply the order in that case op no.2 shall have to pay a further penal interest @ Rs. 500/- per day to the complainant till full payment.

          For adopting unfair trade practice and for deceiving the complainant in such a manner op nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally shall have to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for deceiving the complainant in such a manner and same shall be paid within one month from the date of this order.

          But the case against op no.3 is hereby dismissed already.  Op nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally are hereby directed to comply the order very strictly within one month from the date of this order failing which for violation and non-compliance of the Forum’s order penal interest @ Rs. 200/- shall be paid per day till full satisfaction of the decree and same shall be collected from each op i.e op nos. 1 & 2 even penal proceedings u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 shall be started against them.