Shimla District Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Samsung And Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Based On Unsubstantiated Claims Of Service Deficiency

Brief Facts:

The Complainant purchased a Samsung LED from a store for Rs. 41,500/-, financing it through the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. (“Financer”) for Rs. 31,500/-. She was persuaded to opt for a four-year extended warranty by the financer and paid an additional premium of Rs. 3,325/-. The television worked well for 2½ years but then started having various issues including picture problems, overheating, and sound quality deterioration. Later, the screen of the TV stopped working entirely, making the television unusable. Despite making several communications with Samsung and the financer, no action was taken. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Samsung, the store, and the financer.

In response, Samsung argued that its warranty, valid for one year, expired on December 13, 2014. It stated that the complaint lacked substantive evidence such as an analysis test report for alleging manufacturing defects. It argued that there was a lapse of almost three years between the purchase and the complaint filing which itself suggested the absence of a manufacturing fault. It contended that the Complainant's warranty extension with the financer absolved them of liability, as the complaint related solely to the actions of the financer.

The financer argued that it provided the Complainant with extended warranty insurance, and the responsibility for repairing the product lied with Samsung. It argued that it never refused to indemnify the Complainant, and thus, there was no deficiency in its services. It asserted that it already repaired the Complainant's LED by replacing the complete LED panel and covered the repair charges of Rs. 24,496/-. It argued that since it fulfilled its obligation, there was no deficiency in its services.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that the Complainant purchased the TV set from the store, and it functioned properly for 2½ years before encountering issues. It noted that the complaint accused the financer and Samsung of neglecting the Complainant's issue, but the financer contended that it attended to the complaint by completely replacing the LED panel, bearing the charges of Rs. 24,496/-. It held that the financer substantiated its claim with documentary evidence, demonstrating that the problem with the screen was resolved by replacing the LED panel.

Further, the District Commission held that the evidence presented by the financer and Samsung remained unchallenged by the Complainant. Neither a rejoinder was filed, nor any counterevidence was presented later. Consequently, it held that the Complainant failed to substantiate her case against the financer concerning the alleged neglect of the complaint and any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

Consequently, the District Commission dismissed the consumer complaint.