Failure To Provide Essential Spare Parts, Coercing For Replacement, Ernakulam District Commission Holds Samsung Electronics Liable For Restrictive Trade Practice

Brief Facts:

Cdr. Keerthi M. Kuriens (“Complainant”) was convinced by a Sales Manager of Bismi Home Appliances (“Seller”) to purchase a 675 litres double-door refrigerator, manufactured by Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (“Samsung”). However, within 5 years of the purchase, the refrigerator started having cooling issues. The Complainant approached Samsung's customer care for assistance. However, he faced several delays and unresponsiveness. After several efforts, an engineer designated by Samsung inspected the refrigerator and found a relay change and a potential gas leak to be the cause of the problem. Despite multiple repairs at Samsung's service centre, the problem persisted. Samsung sent a different engineer later to inspect the refrigerator. He identified a manufacturing defect involving a gas leak and informed the Complainant that Samsung would offer a coupon for a new refrigerator with a 10-15% discount. However, Samsung's local office rejected the coupon based on the refrigerator's usage over 4.5 years. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala (“District Commission”).

Samsung contended that the complaint is baseless and unsustainable in law as the alleged defects do not constitute manufacturing defects and have been caused due to mishandling and ancillary reasons which can be rectified. Further, the damages were reported to Samsung when the refrigerator was outside the period of warranty. The Complainant also denied the depreciated refund by the service centre and instead offered a refund of up to 90%. Since he did not approach Samsung for after-sale services, there was no deficiency in service.

On the other hand, the Sales Manager contended that it was the Complainant's own will to buy the refrigerator and the complaint has been made as an attempt to unjustly obtain a new refrigerator. He further contended that he could not be held liable for providing warranty and after-sales service.

Observations by the Commission:

With regards to the liability of the seller, the District Commission held that dealers/sellers cannot be held liable for manufacturing defects of the products. Further, the complaint was filed after 5 years of the refrigerator's use. During this period, the Complainant did not face any issues. Thus, the claim for a total replacement was held to be unsustainable. The District Commission also remarked that the complainant seemed to be filed on an experimental basis as the claims of the Complainant were not specific or directed towards any specific party.

However, the District Commission held that Samsung still had the obligation to ensure the availability of the required components of the product in the market. It failed to provide the spare parts for the refrigerator to address the defect. Thus, it was held liable for unfair trade practices. The District Commission characterized it as a 'Restrictive Trade Practice' and held Samsung liable for the intentional withholding of essential spare parts of the product.

“Intentional withholding of essential spare and consumable parts by manufacturers leaves consumers with limited options, compelling them to abandon functional products and acquire a replacement. This not only imposes financial burdens on consumers but also contributes to environmental degradation through an increase in electronic waste.”

The District Commission commended the pursuance of the matter by the Complainant, a retired Indian Naval officer, against a multinational company. It expressed concerns over such practices by the manufacturers coercing consumers into procuring replacements and thereby, artificially inflating the manufacturers' sales and profits.

Resultantly, Samsung was directed to refund Rs. 36,000/- to the Complainant keeping in mind the usage of the refrigerator for almost 5 years. Samsung was also directed to pay Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,000- for litigation costs to the Complainant.

Case Title: Cdr. Keerthi M. Kuriens vs The Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case No.: C.C. No. 328/2021

Advocate for the Complainant: N.A.

Advocate for the Respondent: K.S. Arundas for Samsung; T.J. Lakshmanan for the Sales Manager