Samsung Phone Sold With Pre-Activated Warranty: Haridwar Consumer Commission Holds Dealer Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar, comprising President Shri Gagan Kumar Gupta, Member Dr. Amesh Rawat and Member Smt. Ranjana Goyal, has partly allowed a complaint against Maira Enterprises, holding it liable for deficiency in service for selling a Samsung mobile phone whose warranty had been activated before the date of purchase without disclosing the same to the consumer.
Facts:
The complainant, Aman, purchased a Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 3 5G mobile phone from Opposite Party No. 1, Maira Enterprises, on December 30, 2022, for ₹75,000. The mobile phone was sold with a one-year warranty. After functioning properly for some time, the phone allegedly developed defects, including a black display, reduced sound and poor battery backup.
The complainant approached the dealer regarding the defects and was directed to Opposite Party No. 2, the Samsung service centre. On November 24, 2023, he took the mobile phone to the service centre for repair. After conducting an online check, the service centre informed him that the warranty had expired on November 14, 2023, and declined to repair the phone.
The complainant disputed the warranty position, contending that since the phone was purchased on December 30, 2022, its one-year warranty ought to have remained valid until December 30, 2023. He alleged that the refusal to repair the phone constituted deficiency in service and caused him mental and financial hardship. He consequently approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar, seeking appropriate relief against the opposite parties.
Contentions of the Opposition party:
Samsung India Pvt. Ltd., contested the complaint, maintaining that the mobile phone had been activated on November 14, 2022, before its purchase by the complainant on December 30, 2022. According to Samsung, the one-year warranty therefore expired on November 14, 2023. It further contended that the phone had been sold by the dealer in its independent capacity and that no direct deficiency in service on the part of the manufacturer had been established.
Observation and decision
The Commission observed that although the mobile phone was purchased on December 30, 2022, its warranty had been activated from November 14, 2022. Since the complainant approached the service centre on November 24, 2023, the Commission held that he should have received the benefit of warranty from the actual date of purchase. The dealer's failure to disclose the earlier activation amounted to deficiency in service.
The Commission, however, found no evidence of deficiency on the part of the Samsung service centre or Samsung India and held that the manufacturer could not be held liable merely for the dealer's acts.
The complaint was partly allowed against the dealer and dismissed against the service centre and Samsung India. The dealer was directed to repair the phone within 45 days or provide a new phone of equivalent value. Failing this, the dealer was directed to refund ₹75,000 with 6% annual interest, along with ₹10,000 for mental harassment and ₹5,000 as litigation costs.
Case Title: Aman v. Maira Enterprises & Ors.
Case No.: DC/50/CC/12/2024