The complainant, Sarveswara Sarma Mantha, a retired Electronics Corporation of India Limited (ECIL) employee residing in Malkajgiri, had purchased a Hisense 177 cm (70-inch) 4K Ultra HD Android Smart LED TV for ₹69,990 through the online portal of Reliance Digital on November 2, 2021.

Defect noticed during installation of television

According to the complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the television was delivered on November 14, 2021. During installation on November 17, 2021, horizontal and vertical lines appeared on the screen immediately after the device was switched on.

Medak Consumer Commission Orders Realtor to Refund ₹5 Lakh with 9% Interest

The technician allegedly informed the consumer that the issue was due to a manufacturing defect. Following repeated complaints, the company replaced the television on December 28, 2021.

However, the replacement unit also developed the same display defect. The product was replaced again on February 15, 2022. The third television reportedly showed identical screen problems.

Dissatisfied with repeated replacements, the complainant refused further replacements and demanded a refund of the purchase amount.

Commission rejects retailer's defence of physical damage

Reliance Digital and related opposite parties contended that the product had been delivered in working condition and that later malfunction occurred due to physical damage, which was not covered under warranty.

They also argued that replacement or return required a Dead on Arrival (DOA) certificate from the manufacturer, Hisense, which had not been produced by the complainant.

The commission, however, noted that the opposite parties failed to produce any independent technical report establishing that the defect resulted from physical damage.

"Mere assertion of physical damage without expert evidence is insufficient," the commission observed, adding that the burden of proving exclusion of warranty lay with the service provider.

The panel also noted that the brand had earlier offered replacement at 80% of the invoice cost, indicating that the issue was substantial.

Compensation awarded for deficiency in service

Holding that the product suffered from a manufacturing defect and that the seller failed to resolve the issue satisfactorily, the commission found the opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to:

• Refund ₹69,990 with 9% annual interest from October 31, 2023 until payment

• Pay ₹10,000 as compensation for mental agony and inconvenience

• Pay ₹10,000 towards litigation costs

The companies were given 45 days to comply with the order. If they fail to do so, interest on the refund amount will increase to 12% per annum from October 31, 2023.

The commission also allowed the opposite parties to collect the television from the complainant's residence after complying with the order.