HP State Consumer Commission Dismisses Appeal Against Samsung; Holds Second Screen Damage Due To Mishandling Not Covered Under Warranty

The Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Commission, comprising Inder Singh Mehta (President) and Yogita Dutta (Member), dismissed the appeal against Kiran Stationery Mart and Samsung for the denial of warranty coverage. The Commission held that the complainant had already exhausted the one-time screen replacement benefit under the ADLD plan and that the subsequent damage to the device was the result of mishandling. Brief FactsThe complainant, Nishant Sharma, purchased a Samsung Z Flip 3 from Kiran Stationary Mart (OP No. 1) for Rs. 83,990 on 18-09-2021, manufactured by Samsung (Opposite Party No. 2) .The device was sold with a full manufacturer's warranty. Shortly after the purchase, the complainant encountered a defect in the LCD display of the phone. On 30-10-2021, the device was taken to Himtech Electronics (OP No. 3), an authorized service centre. The repair was carried out under the Samsung Care+ Accidental & Liquid Damage Protection (ADLD) Plan, which was provided by Service Lee Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The screen was replaced free of cost, in accordance with the protection plan, and the phone was returned to the complainant on 01-11-2021 in proper working condition. Ten months after the first repair, on 19-08-2022, the complainant again reported damage to the display. The service centre issued an estimate of Rs.29,769 for the repair. Samsung and the service centre declined to provide a free repair on the grounds that the warranty plan under ADLD permits only one screen replacement per year. Aggrieved by the Opposite Party's failure to repair the device for free of cost during the warranty period, the complainant approached the District Consumer Commission, Shimla. The commission dismissed the complaint. The complainant preferred the instant appeal before the Himachal Pradesh State Commission. Arguments by the Opposite PartiesSamsung (OP No. 2) contended that the complainant was not entitled to a second free repair, as he had already exhausted the benefits under the Samsung Care+ Accidental & Liquid Damage Protection (ADLD) Plan and the subsequent damage was due to mishandling. It was submitted that the ADLD plan permits only a one-time screen replacement within one year, which the complainant had already availed on 30-10-2021, thereby excluding the second damage reported in August 2022 from coverage.The counsel further contended that the second defect was not a manufacturing defect, as photographs revealed black spots and white lines on the LCD indicative of external pressure or force, which, under company policy, excludes the warranty. Counsel further submitted that Samsung is a separate legal entity from Servify and is not liable for its protection plans, and that OP No. 1 was not an authorised dealer.Observations by the commissionThe Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Commission, observing that the complainant had failed to establish the existence of any manufacturing defect and had concealed material facts relating to the repair history of the device. The Commission noted that the complainant had not disclosed the first free repair carried out in 2021 and that the records clearly showed the mobile phone was delivered to him in November 2021 in proper working condition after the said repair. Upon examining the photographs of the device, the Commission observed the presence of black spots and white lines on the LCD, which were indicative of physical damage caused by external pressure or mishandling. It further observed that, as per company policy, the warranty stands cancelled in cases involving physical damage, liquid damage, or mishandling. The Commission also noted that the Samsung Care+ Accidental and Liquid Damage Protection (ADLD) plan permits only one screen replacement within a year. Further, it held that the complainant had failed to place on record any expert opinion to substantiate the allegation of a manufacturing defect or deficiency in service. Concluding that no deficiency in service was made out against the Opposite Parties, the Commission held that the complainant's demand for a second free repair was beyond the scope of the agreed warranty terms and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Case Title: Nishant Sharma vs Kiran Stationary Mart (SC/2/A/227/2024)Click Here To Read/Download Order

HP State Consumer Commission Dismisses Appeal Against Samsung; Holds Second Screen Damage Due To Mishandling Not Covered Under Warranty

Muhammed Razik

Tags