The Ernakulam Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has found a television manufacturing company and a retail seller guilty of misrepresenting the features of a television set sold and has ordered payment of ₹1 lakh, including a compensation of ₹40,000, to the aggrieved customer.
The commission, comprising president D.B. Binu and members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., issued the verdict on a petition filed by John Prakash Bavakkat, a lawyer from Angamaly, against Ridaex Information Systems and Service Private Limited and Got Matter Private Limited, both entities based in Bengaluru.
According to the petitioner, he purchased a 55-inch 4K DCI Android TV from the first respondent (manufacturer) and the second respondent (seller) for ₹42,000, based on claims made via social media that it was a 4K Android TV suitable for a home theatre set-up. However, the TV failed to play 4K content, was not Android certified, and was essentially a full HD TV misrepresented as a 4K TV, which the petitioner accused amounted to fraudulent misrepresentation and unfair trade practice.
The core issue revolves around the misrepresentation of the product’s capabilities contrary to the claims made by the opposite parties. The misrepresentation constituted clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(g) & 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, said the commission.
The opposite parties’ refusal to respond to the notice and challenge the complainant’s claims amounted to their tacit admission of the allegations. “Such behaviour is consistent with a pattern of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The complainant’s request for relief, including a refund of the purchase price, and compensation for mental agony, embarrassment, and prejudice, is justified considering the circumstances. The respondents’ failure to deliver the promised product constitutes deficiency in service,” said the commission.
As such, the commission directed the opposite parties to refund the customer the purchase price of ₹42,000, a compensation of ₹40,000 and ₹20,000 as the cost of legal proceedings. The opposite parties were also asked to remove the television from the residence of the complainant at their expense.
