Dark Mode
Image
Logo
Delhi Consumer Commission Holds Paladin Systems Liable For Failing To Repair Or Provide Standby Phone; Awards ₹25,000 Compensation To Complainant

Delhi Consumer Commission Holds Paladin Systems Liable For Failing To Repair Or Provide Standby Phone; Awards ₹25,000 Compensation To Complainant

Pranav B Prem


The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South-West Delhi, comprising Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta (President) and Dr. Harshali Kaur (Member), has held M/s Paladin Systems Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to repair or return a handset and for not providing a standby device as promised under a two-year protection plan.

 

Also Read: Myntra Held Liable For Wrong Product Delivery; Consumer Commission Orders Refund And Compensation
 
 
Background of the Case

The complainant, Pankaj Kumar, had purchased a Samsung Galaxy S4 Mini mobile phone on November 4, 2013, for ₹21,500 from M/s David Sales & Solutions (OP-2). The handset was manufactured by M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1). On the recommendation of OP-2, the complainant also availed a two-year Protection/Insurance Plan from M/s Paladin Systems Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) by paying an additional ₹2,150. Under the terms of this protection plan, OP-3 assured free doorstep pick-up and delivery, repair service, and a standby handset during the repair period. The arrangement was intended to provide convenience and uninterrupted service to the customer in case of damage to the device.

 

In February 2015, the complainant’s mobile phone screen was damaged. He contacted OP-3 for service under the protection plan, after which a representative collected the handset on February 26, 2015, and issued a job sheet. He was told that the repaired phone would be delivered within 24 hours, or a standby device would be provided in the interim. However, despite repeated requests, OP-3 neither returned the repaired handset nor provided a standby phone. The complainant sent several emails between March 18, 2015, and May 14, 2015, but received no reply. Eventually, he issued a legal notice on June 1, 2015, which also went unanswered.

 

Aggrieved by the continued inaction, the complainant filed a complaint before the Commission under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking repair or replacement of the handset, refund of its cost, and compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses.

 

Proceedings Before the Commission

Notice was issued to all opposite parties. However, none of them appeared before the Commission despite proper service of notice. Consequently, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) was deleted from the array of parties at the complainant’s request, while David Sales & Solutions (OP-2) and Paladin Systems Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) were proceeded ex parte.

 

The complainant filed ex parte evidence and supporting documents, including the retail invoice, protection plan enrolment form, job sheet, email correspondences, and the legal notice.

 

Findings and Observations

The Commission observed that the complainant had adequately proved his case through documentary evidence. It noted that while OP-1 and OP-2 could not be held liable — as the handset had functioned properly for over a year and Samsung was later deleted from the complaint — OP-3 failed to fulfil its obligations under the protection plan. The Commission recorded: “We have no reason to disbelieve the complainant’s averments qua OP-3 in light of his unrebutted testimony, substantiated with cogent documentary evidence.”

 

The Commission emphasized that OP-3 was contractually bound to provide repair service or a standby phone but had neither fulfilled these promises nor responded to the complainant’s repeated communications. This conduct, it held, amounted to a clear deficiency in service, causing mental agony and harassment to the consumer.

 

Decision of the Commission

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.

  • Pay ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.

  • Comply with the order within three months from the date of receipt, failing which the compensation amount would carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the order until realization.

 

Also Read: Dharamshala Consumer Commission: Thai Lion Air Fined ₹1 Lakh For Denying Water To Passengers’ Children During Six-Hour Flight; Terms Act ‘Violation Of Basic Human Rights’
 
 
The Commission thus concluded that Paladin Systems Pvt. Ltd. had failed to deliver on its contractual assurances and engaged in a clear deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. The decision underscores that service providers offering protection or warranty schemes must adhere to their commitments, or they risk being held financially accountable by consumer forums. The order was pronounced on October 17, 2025, by President Suresh Kumar Gupta and Member Dr. Harshali Kaur of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South-West Delhi.
 
 
Cause Title: Pankaj Kumar v. M/s Paladin Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No: DC/84/CC/15/448
Coram: Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), Dr. Harshali Kaur (Member)

Comment / Reply From

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list to get the new updates!