Failure To Repair Phone With Manufacturing Defects Within Warranty Period, Kangra District Commission Holds Samsung India Liable

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) bench of Hemanshu Mishra (President), Arti Sood (Member) and Narayan Thakur (Member) held Samsung liable for deficiency in services for selling a defective Galaxy Z Fold phone and failing to repair it within the warranty period. The bench directed Samsung to refund Rs. 1,58,000/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 36,300/- along with litigation costs of Rs. 15,000/- incurred by him. Brief Facts: The Complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy Z Fold from R Rahul Communication (“Seller”) for Rs. 1,58,000/-, with a one-year warranty. In April 2023, the Complainant noticed swelling on the inner screen of the mobile. He made several attempts to repair the device at the local Samsung Service Center in Palampur and Dharamshala which proved futile. Upon visiting the Samsung Authorized Service Centre, the staff identified the fault as "Octa/Display Black Bleeding And Line On Display Always" and assured rectification within ten days. The Complainant made an online complaint. Despite acknowledging the complaint, Samsung Service Center stated that the warranty status was expired and refused repair or replacement. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh and filed a complaint against the Samsung Service Center, the Seller and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd (“Samsung India”). In response, Samsung India contended that services were rendered on every occasion, but damage to the unit, specifically to the inner display (OCTA), was caused by dents on the hinge, as per the engineer's assessment. It argued that the Complainant's narrative was fabricated to exploit unwarranted benefits which requires expert opinion or cogent evidence. Additionally, it referred to a report/job sheet indicating the device's warranty expiration. Samsung Service Centre and the Seller didn't appear before the District Commission for proceedings. Observations by the District Commission: The District Commission noted that on 20.04.2023, the Complainant submitted the mobile to the service centre which indicated that it was under full warranty, with the defect described as a broken front UB display. The repair involved replacing parts and upon completion, the handset was returned to the Complainant, who paid Rs.13,505/-. Subsequently, on 04.05.2023, the mobile exhibited the defect of "Octa/Display Black Bleeding and Line on Display Always," still under full warranty, but the estimate for repair was not approved. Samsung India tried to invalidate the warranty referring to the dents in the mobile but failed to provide an affidavit supporting the photographs of the dents. The District Commission considered the email response from one of the employees who stated that there was a mid-level dent on the device hinge. This led to the conclusion that only out-of-warranty support was provided. However, the technical report observed a dent on the hinge and inner display damage and proposed an estimate for repair. The District Commission noted that the affidavit of the service engineer lacked crucial details such as the date of inspection and disclosure of damage to the Complainant. The District Commission noted that there were discrepancies in the service records, with conflicting dates and missing information regarding the service engineer's identity. It noted that the handset was submitted for repair within 12 months of purchase which suggested that it was under warranty period. Considering the nature of the mobile as a two-folding device, the District Commission held that the defect stemmed from a manufacturing defect. Therefore, the District Commission held that Samsung failed to repair the handset within the warranty period which compelled the Complainant to purchase another mobile. Consequently, it held that the Complainant was entitled to a full refund of Rs. 1,58,000/-. Samsung was also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 36,300/- to the Complainant along with litigation costs of Rs. 15,000/-. Case Title: Kanwaljit Singh vs Samsung Auth. Service and Ors. Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 235/2023 Advocate for the Complainant: Mr Ritvik Sharma Advocate for the Opposite Party: Mr Daljit Singh (For Samsung India and Samsung Service Centre); None for the Seller Order Date: 31st May 2024Click Here To Read/Download Order

Failure To Repair Phone With Manufacturing Defects Within Warranty Period, Kangra District Commission Holds Samsung India Liable

Smita Singh

Tags