CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X

                           GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

                     Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

                                       (Behind Qutub Hotel)

                                        New Delhi – 110016

        Case No:366/2017

Apoorv Jain

E-503, Celebrity Homes

Palam Vihar

Gurgaon-122017. …..COMPLAINANT

Vs.   

1. VU Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Corporate Office: D-153A, Okhla

Noida, Delhi-110025

2. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.

Vaishnavi Summit, No.-6/3

​

          Date of Institution-20.12.2017

          Date of Order- 09.08.2024

  O R D E R

RITU GARODIA-MEMBER

1. The complaint pertains to misleading advertisement and unfair trade practices by OP. 

2. The facts as stated in complaint are that the complainant had purchased a television (Model No.5K700) for a consideration of Rs.1,99,999/- along with extended warranty of 2 years  for a consideration of    Rs.11,688/-. The complainant before purchasing the product had gone through the information provided in the official website of OP-1.

3. According to the said promotion and advertisements, the television purchased is software and hardware compatible for viewing HDR (High Dynamic Range) content. On the very next day, the complainant tried to play the HDR content via HDMI port but it failed to play the same. The product did not support HDR content completely through HDMI port and cannot be viewed in the television panel. HDR could only be played through the USB port.  The HDMI port does not support HDR capable devices which are capable of outputting legitimate HDR content.

4. It is alleged that the defective product is in complete violation of the Intellectual Property Rights as the playing of copyright material such as movies and series through USB can only be done once being downloaded illegally.

5. It is further stated that the description of the said television on the website does not disclose that a 10 bit panel is required for the playing HDR content and the television in question has 8 bit panel which does not support HDR content.  It is alleged that to hide the defect, OP claims that this is a ‘HDR Ready’ television. However, no definition of ‘HDR Ready’ has been provided.

6. It is alleged that the defective product being a 40 kilogram product, the complainant had to rebuilt an entire wall at his residence to support the weight of the defective product which amounted to approximately Rs.50,000/-. The complainant prays for removal of defect in the product, to refund all the consumers who purchased similar product from OP, issuance of corrective advertisement, compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, payment of Rs.60,000/- for harassment and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation cost.

7. OP-1 in its reply submits that it is a company engaged in manufacture of high quality electronics goods including LCD and LED televisions.  OP-1 provides products built from the highest A+ grade panels, with the fastest processors, RoHS grade materials, and energy efficient power solutions.

8. OP-1 further submits that the complainant has admitted that he has recommended the product leading to a sale of more than 50 television and he himself had purchased 30 televisions from OP-1.   The OP-1 imputes that such a sale could only be made for commercial purposes.

9. The complainant purchased one Television (Model No.75K700) for a consideration of Rs.1,99,999/-along with extended warranty of 2 years from the OP-2 for a consideration of Rs.11,688/-.

10. It is alleged that the complainant was trying to play a file (HDR 10 version) which was compatible only with a device having “HDR10 supported” software.  The product was well compatible for HDR content file.  Nowhere in advertisement or promotion material had the OP-1 claimed that their television is a HDR10 supported television.  It is submitted that the complainant was able to play HDR file on his TV via USB port.

11. The description of the product in the website clearly shows that the television is HDR Ready.  It is submitted that HDR Ready is the basic version of the software which is compatible to play HDR files and it is upgraded through software to make it compatible with HDR10 files also.  Moreover, HDR Ready version helps to decode Local HDR files and it was there in the product purchased by the complainant.

12. OP-2 in its reply submits that it provides online market place to the sellers and buyers of products to facilitate the transactions, electronic commerce for various goods, by and between respective buyers and sellers.  OP2 also submit that it is exempted under section 2(1)(w) and Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

13. It is further submitted that the product purchased by the complainant was manufactured by OP-1 and sold by a third party seller registered on ‘Flipkart platform’ as is evident from the invoice copy attached by the complainant with the complaint.   

14. The complainant filed the evidence in form of affidavit and exhibited the following:

1. Copy of invoices is exhibited as Exhibit- A-I.
2. Copy of details presented in website is exhibited as Exhibit- A-2.
3. Copy of emails is exhibited as Exhibit- A-3.

15. OP-1 filed the evidence in form of affidavit and exhibited the following:

4. Copy of email is exhibited as EXHIBIT-I.
5.  Copy of complete User Manual is exhibited as EXHIBIT-II.
6. Copy of emails dated 17.11.2017 are exhibited as EXHIBIT-III & IV.

16. The Commission has considered documents and material on record.  The invoice dated 25.09.2017 and 22.09.2017 shows that a television with the following particulars ‘Vu190cm (75 inch) Ultra HD (4K) LED Smart TV’ was purchased for Rs.1,99,000/-.  Invoice dated 22.09.2017 shows that an extended warranty of two years was given on the product by OP-2 for Rs.11,688/-. 

17. The advertisement and brochure of OP-1 describes the product as “Vu Premium UHD Smart TV H75K700 (190 cm) UHD 3D SMART LED TV, The Power of Pixelight HDR, PREMIUM UHD”.  The technical specification shows that the colour depth is 10.  The technical specification further shows that HDMI 1234 could be played on the said TV.

18. Several emails were exchanged between the parties from 11.10.2017 regarding HDR output. Relevant portion of OPs email dated 17.10.2017 is as follows:

“The technology LEDH75K700 uses is called "HDR ready", which means it can only decode local HDR files. In this particular model we have launched in 2016 the HDR ready technology.

• Pixelight High Dynamic Range technology which enhances brightness range and improves the brightest and darkest parts of the picture, and brings us a much wider range of color. Except for the improvements on dynamic contrast, HDR also enhances picture details and provides users with high quality images.
• The TV panel is 8 bit panel with 450nits brightness where as HDR TV panel is 10bit panel with 500nits brightness (HDR10 has no direct connection with 10- bit color depth)
• The 75" TV supports the output of 10-bit signal, but can only capture the 8-bit signal, then transfer to 10-bit while displaying. HDR10 is connected to the chip and the software the TV uses, LEDH75K700 uses the 5657chip, and only supports HDR ready.
• Mr. Jain The products which we launched this year with HDR10 bit from 43'inches to 65 inches supports for below mentioned external devices and there compatible with our latest HDR10 Technology higher end Technology,

19. The complainant replied vide email dated 24.10.2017-

“1.Your first pointer mentions of ""HDR Ready', which means it can only decode local files". So by this you mean that is can decode HDR files but cannot display the contents of the same. I am also attaching the brochure of the website for your reference, as to point me out where exactly does it say HDR Ready and have no capability to display the same. Whereas what I see in the HDR section is you showing the difference between the normal display and the HDR display.

In the third pointer you have mentioned this being an 8 bit panel but this information is nowhere displayed in the brochure on the website, which seems kind of deceiving as well.”

20. Order dated 27.02.2024 by this Commission is as follows
    •  

21. Order dated 08.04.2024 of this  Commission is as follows:
    •  

22. Thus, it can be concluded that the television in question is referred to by OP as HDR Ready and can decode local HDR file. The said TV has an 8-bit panel and can capture only 8-bit signal and has no capability to display contents of HDR files.  OP further states that the television that contain HDR 10 has a 10-bit panel which supports and is compatible with external devices and can display HD content. Specifications such as "HDR Ready" basically means that the monitor has the software to process HDR content but not the hardware to show it.

23. The Commission has repeatedly requested the OP to explain the difference between HDR, HDR 10 and HDR ready. OP failed to explain the difference between them.  Moreover, there is no mention of HDR Ready or 8 bit panel in any of the advertisement of brochure displayed on the website.

24.  Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, in Jatin Bansal vs M/S Amazon Reseller Services Pvt. Ltd. decided on 12.03. 2024 has observed as follows-

It is an admitted fact that since 06.06.2019, opposite party no.2 by sending email, Annexure OP-2/3 has apprised and cautioned Amazon not to display at their portal "Marc Jacobs" on the page of "marc" brand of opposite party no.2. Even more similar emails have been sent as discussed above but inspite of that Amazon in an illegal way is utilizing the same brand "Marc Jacobs" without any acceptable reason. By doing so, Amazon has earned undue enrichment and also opposite party no.2 has been benefited therewith.  The actual enrichment/collecting of money by their illegal means from gullible customers/purchasers cannot be properly determined as we have no data how much products have been sold by both the opposite parties, till date.

After analysis of the evidence and material available on the record, we are of the considered view that opposite party no.1 has deliberately and wrongly displayed the luxurious brand name of  "Marc  Jacobs" but was selling  local brand "marc" under the garb of the said luxurious brand. 

25. Hon’ble National Commission in Tata Motors Ltd. vs. Pradipta Kundu and Ors, III (2020) CPJ84 (NC), has observed as follows-

It is an admitted fact that an advertisement was issued by Tata Motors and Tata Motor Finance claiming a mileage of 25 kmpl, also the fact that it is India's most fuel-efficient car and that it was an offer for a limited period. This allured the Complainant to buy the car and he was disappointed that the car was not giving the mileage as claimed in the advertisement. Test drive also showed that the mileage given by the car was certainly not as per the advertisement. Mileage test drive was done on different dates and it was found as 15.24 kmpl on 29.12.2011, 17.94 kmpl on 5.7.2012, 17.42 kmpl on 28.9.2012 and a joint test/investigation was done on 16.1.2013 when mileage was found as 15.38 kmpl on long drive. The District Forum rightly held that in such a situation there was no need for an expert opinion. Car was manufactured by the Opposite Party which the Complainant had purchased after paying the price of the car. Taking the loan and hypothecation of the said car are not relevant to establish that the Complainant is a Consumer. Both the Fora below have come to a concurrent finding that the Opposite Parties resorted to deceptive trade practice by alluring customers and promoting sale of their cars. The advertisement also had not mentioned whether the mileage shown was for diesel or petrol car.

26. Hence, we find OP guilty of deceptive trade practice in not mentioning ‘HDR Ready’ for the television in question in its advertisement and brochures on website as well as those given to the complainant. This practice has been employed by OP to allure customers and promote their sale of the television. Thus, we direct OP to refund-

1. Rs. 2,11,687/- (Rs.1,99,999/- +Rs.11,688/-) with 9% interest from date of purchase i.e., 25.09.2017 till realization
2. Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and physical inconveniences.
3. Rs.5,000/- for litigation

27. Order to be uploaded within 30 days and file be consigned to record room.