Ernakulam District Commission Holds Samsung India Liable For Deficiency Over Denying To Repair Product Within Its Warranty Period

The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held Samsung India and its dealer liable for deficiency in service due to their refusal to repair the product purchased by the complainant during its warranty period. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant bought a Samsung refrigerator from Samsung India(manufacturer) through a dealer with a ten-year compressor warranty. They faced 'no cooling' issues, and despite being in the warranty period, the initial repair cost them Rs. 2,581. Unfortunately, the problem persisted, sending the refrigerator to the service centre. The service center couldn't fix it and offered a 90% refund, but the complainant received only Rs. 7,800 instead of the expected amount. Subsequently, the complainant's lawyer sent a notice to the manufacturer, resulting in false statements. It was discovered that the necessary parts for repairing the refrigerator were unavailable as the model had been withdrawn from the market. This failure to address the defect due to parts unavailability is considered a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. The complainant is seeking a refund of Rs. 70,200 for the refrigerator, along with 12% interest from the complaint date. Additionally, they are requesting Rs. 50,000 as compensation for the mental distress, financial loss, and hardship endured due to the prolonged period without a working refrigerator. The complainant is also seeking the cost of the proceedings. Contentions of the Opposite Party The manufacturer contended that the complaint lacked proper verification and reasonable due diligence. They highlighted the reputable nature of Samsung India. They raised objections to the complaint's maintainability, suggesting that defects in the refrigerator may be attributed to mishandling or improper use. The initial offer from the service center for a 10% depreciated refund, initially accepted by the complainant but later refused, was disputed by the manufacturer. The response maintained that no deficiency in service or unfair trade practices occurred on their part. Ultimately, the manufacturer sought the dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs in their favor, emphasizing justice, equity, and good conscience. Observations by the Commission The commission observed that the manufacturer admitted the refrigerator couldn't be fixed due to internal issues. Despite this, instead of either repairing the appliance or refunding its cost, they offered a small compensation of Rs. 7800. The commission highlighted that although India lacks a specific “Right to Repair” law, previous court cases have addressed similar concerns. For instance, in the case of Sanjeev Nirwani v. HCL, it was decided that companies must provide spare parts beyond the warranty period, and failing to do so would be considered an unfair trade practice. The commission emphasized that when manufacturers purposely withhold necessary spare parts, consumers are forced to abandon working products and buy replacements, leading to financial strain and environmental harm from increased electronic waste. Furthermore, the commission observed that the dealer's failure to respond to the commission's notice implies acknowledgment of the allegations against them. Overall, the commission agreed with the complainant that the actions of the manufacturer and dealer constitute a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The commission held the dealer and the manufacturer jointly and severelly liable and directed them to refund the complainant the remaining amount of Rs. 70,200/-for the refrigerator along with Rs. 40,000 as compensation for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practices they committed. The dealer shall also pay Rs. 10,000 towards the cost of proceedings.Counsel for the Complainant: Adv. Tom Joseph Counsel for the Opposite Party: Adv. K.S. Arundas Case Title: Reghu Ajay Vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd. Case Number: C.C No. 383/2022 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Ernakulam District Commission Holds Samsung India Liable For Deficiency Over Denying To Repair Product Within Its Warranty Period

Ayushi Rani

Tags