Delhi Consumer Commission Holds Samsung and Service Centre Liable for Not Replacing Defective Mobile; Orders Refund and Compensation
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North District, Delhi, comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Mehta (Member), and Harpreet Kaur (Member), has held Samsung India Electronics and its authorized service centre liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to replace a defective mobile handset. The Commission directed refund of the purchase price of the handset and awarded compensation to the complainant.
Background Facts
The complainant, Doneshwar Arya, purchased a Samsung A35 (model no. SM–A356E/DS) on 22 March 2024 from Croma, Delhi, for ₹30,999. Within three days, a line appeared on the LCD display of the phone. On the 10th day of purchase, he visited Croma, which registered a complaint and advised him to approach Samsung’s authorized service centre.
At the service centre, a technician temporarily resolved the issue by updating the software, but the defect reappeared. On 3 April 2024, the complainant’s wife again visited the service centre, where it was informed that the handset would be sent to the Noida centre for further inspection. Subsequently, the complainant was asked to deposit the box, charger, and cable. He was also told that the handset had a manufacturing defect but would not be replaced without the IMEI sticker. Despite producing the original box, invoice, and other materials, the service centre remained unwilling to process replacement.
Repeated visits, emails, and customer care complaints yielded no result, and the complainant was left without a functional handset. Forced by circumstances, he purchased a second phone for ₹10,000. Aggrieved, he filed a consumer complaint seeking refund of the handset’s cost, compensation of ₹3,00,000 each from Samsung and Croma, and litigation expenses.
Submissions of the Opposite Parties
Despite notice, the service centre (OP-2) remained absent and was proceeded ex parte. Croma (OP-3) failed to file its reply within the statutory period, and its right to submit a written statement was closed. Samsung India (OP-1) admitted the sale of the handset but denied any deficiency. It argued that all products undergo strict quality checks and are covered under warranty. The company contended that the complainant was provided services as per policy and claimed that the complaint was an attempt to seek refund and compensation beyond warranty terms. It also maintained that replacement required compliance with warranty conditions, including submission of the IMEI sticker.
Observations of the Commission
The Commission examined the documents, including the invoice, warranty policy, photographs, emails, and job sheets. It noted that Samsung’s own replacement policy required submission of the handset, original box, and accessories to the authorized service centre within 14 days of purchase. The complainant had complied with these requirements.
It was observed that:
The complainant visited the service centre within 13 days of purchase, well within the stipulated replacement period.
The IMEI numbers on the handset and the box matched.
The warranty policy nowhere required consumers to affix the IMEI sticker to the handset. There was no evidence that the sticker had been removed by the complainant.
The bench held that demanding an IMEI sticker affixed to the handset, despite the complainant having produced the box and other materials, was arbitrary. It noted that refusal to replace the defective handset within the stipulated time violated Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which defines unfair trade practices. The Commission concluded: “In absence of any policy mandating affixation of IMEI sticker on the handset, the demand for the same despite submission of the original box, invoice, and verification of IMEI through the device itself is arbitrary. OP-1 and OP-2 are jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.”
Verdict
The Commission held Samsung India (OP-1) and its service centre (OP-2) jointly and severally liable, with liberty to Samsung to recover 50% of the awarded amount from the service centre. It directed them to:
Refund ₹30,999, being the cost of the defective handset.
Pay ₹25,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment, inclusive of litigation expenses.
The order was to be complied with within 30 days, failing which interest at 9% per annum would apply on the awarded sums.
Cause Title: Sh. Doneshwar Arya V. Samsung India Electronics
Case No: Consumer Complaint No. 282/2024
Coram: Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Mehta (Member), Harpreet Kaur (Member)
