No Repair, No Standby Phone: Consumer Commission Fines Paladin Systems For Service Deficiency

Facts and Background:

The complainant, Sh. Pankaj Kumar purchased a Samsung Galaxy S4 Mini mobile phone on 04.11.2013 from M/s David Sales & Solutions (OP-2) for a sum of ₹21,500, which was manufactured by M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1).

At the time of purchase, the complainant also availed a two-year Protection/Insurance Plan from M/s Paladin Systems Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3), upon the recommendation of OP-2, by paying an additional amount of ₹2,150. Under this plan, OP-3 assured the complainant that in the event of any defect or damage to the handset, it would provide doorstep pick-up and delivery, repair services, and a standby handset for use during the repair period.

In February 2015, the complainant's mobile phone screen was damaged. He immediately approached OP-3 for repair under the protection plan. On 26.02.2015, a representative of OP-3 collected the defective handset and issued Job Sheet, assuring that the repaired phone would be delivered within 24 hours or that a standby handset would be provided. However, OP-3 failed to return the repaired phone or provide any standby device within the promised time.

The complainant sent several e-mails between 18.03.2015 and 14.05.2015 to the opposite parties, requesting resolution of his grievance, but received no response. Consequently, he served a legal notice dated 01.06.2015, which also went unanswered, and no corrective action was taken by the opposite parties.

Aggrieved by their inaction and failure to fulfill contractual obligations, the complainant filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service . He sought repair or replacement of the handset, refund of its cost, and compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses.

Contentions of the Opposite Parties:

The opposite parties did not file any reply or appear before the Commission despite due service of notice. On the complainant's request, OP-1 (Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.) was deleted from the array of parties, while OP-2 (David Sales & Solutions) and OP-3 (Paladin Systems Pvt. Ltd.) were proceeded ex parte. Consequently, the complainant's allegations and evidence remained unrebutted before the Commission.

Observations and Decision of the Commission:

The Commission observed that the complainant had submitted sufficient documentary evidence, including the enrolment form, job sheet, and email correspondences, which clearly showed that M/s Paladin Systems Pvt. Ltd. failed to fulfil its obligations under the protection plan. Despite repeated communications, the company neither repaired nor returned the handset and also failed to provide the promised standby device. The Commission held that this amounted to a clear deficiency in service and caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

It was further noted that Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. had been deleted from the array of parties at the complainant's request, and the handset sold by M/s David Sales & Solutions had functioned properly for more than a year. Hence, no deficiency in service was found on their part.

Holding M/s Paladin Systems Pvt. Ltd. solely responsible, the Commission allowed the complaint and directed the company to pay ₹20,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and ₹5,000 as litigation costs. The Commission further ordered that the payment be made within three months from the receipt of the order, failing which the compensation amount would carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the order until realization.

Case Title: Pankaj Kumar v. M/s Paladin Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number: DC/84/CC/15/448

Click Here To Read/download The Order