Delhi District Commission Holds Samsung India And Its Service Centre Liable For Failure To Replace Defective Mobile Phone

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (North) bench, comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President, Ashwani Mehta, Member and Harpreet Kaur, Member has held Samsung India and its authorized service centre liable for failure to replace a mobile phone which had a manufacturing defect. Brief facts: On 22.03.2024, the complainant purchased a Samsung A35 mobile and model number SM –A356E/DS from Croma, New Delhi ('Seller') for Rs. 30,999/-. As per the complainant, a line started showing up on the LCD display of the mobile on the third day of purchase. On the 10th day, the complainant visited the seller for resolution and a complaint was duly registered. He was advised to take his mobile to a Samsung service centre. On the same day, the complainant visited the Samsung service centre ('centre') for resolution of the issue where it was temporarily resolved. Since the issue continued to persist, on 03.04.2024, the wife of the complainant took the mobile phone to the service centre where she was informed that the handset will be sent to Noida service centre for further inspection. On 06.04.2024, the complainant was asked to deposit the box, pin, IMEI sticker and cable and was informed that there was a manufacturing defect. On depositing the required materials, the complainant requested the staff of the service centre to match the phone details and box but the same was not heeded to. The complainant was informed that without the Dead On Arrival (DOA) certificate, the staff cannot proceed to replace/exchange the mobile. As per the complainant, the service centre was reluctant to replace the mobile phone as per the policy of Samsung India ('manufacturer'). Despite several visits and complaints with the customer care, the handset was not replaced and the complainant was made to wait for hours at the centre. The complainant was then constrained to purchase a second handset for Rs. 10,000/-. Hence, a complaint was filed by the complainant against the manufacturer, service centre and the seller praying for appropriate compensation. The manufacturer, service centre and the seller are collectively referred to as 'Opposite parties'. Despite issuance of notice, none appeared on behalf of the service centre and hence, it was proceeded as ex-parte. The seller failed to file its reply within the statutory period as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and hence, its right to file a written statement was closed. Submissions by the manufacturer (Samsung India): It was submitted that Samsung is a globally renowned manufacturer of electronics and all products pass through stringent quality checks and test trials before actual start of commercial production. The sale of the mobile phone was admitted. It was further submitted that there is warranty of 1 year and in case the terms and conditions of the policy are violated, the warranty shall be void. It was categorically argued that the complainant was provided with all the services as per his satisfaction and therefore the complaint shall be dismissed. Observations of the commission: The bench examined all the documents placed on record by the complainant including the tax invoice, warranty policy of the manufacturer, photographs of the mobile phone and emails sent to the opposite parties. It was observed that as per the warranty policy, the mobile phone along with all accessories is to be brought to the authorized service centre within 14 days from date of activation. It was observed that the complainant has complied with these conditions and approached the service center within the stipulated time. The bench further examined clause 20 of the terms and conditions as per which warranty shall be null and void in case the original serial number is removed from the product. It was observed that the IMEI numbers as displayed on the mobile phone box and the handset are the same. It was further observed that the policy nowhere mentions that the purchaser has to paste the sticker on the rear side of the handset and it is not the case of the manufacturer that the complainant has removed the IMEI sticker from the handset. The bench observed that in the absence of any guidelines mandating the consumers to affix IMEI sticker on the handset, the demand for production of IMEI sticker on the mobile despite submission of original box and other materials was arbitrary. Thus, the manufacturer- Samsung India and its authorized service centre were jointly held liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was allowed with the following reliefs: Refund of Rs. 30,999/- Rs. 25,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment Case Title: Sh. Doneshwar Arya vs Samsung India Electronics Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 282/2024 Date of Decision: 22.08.2025Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Delhi District Commission Holds Samsung India And Its Service Centre Liable For Failure To Replace Defective Mobile Phone

Aakanksha Bajoria

Tags