HP State Consumer Commission Dismisses Appeal; Holds Second Screen Damage Due to Mishandling Not Covered Under Warranty
Pranav B Prem
The Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed an appeal filed against Kiran Stationery Mart and Samsung, upholding the denial of warranty coverage for a second instance of screen damage to a mobile phone. The Commission held that the complainant had already exhausted the one-time screen replacement benefit available under the protection plan and that the subsequent damage was caused due to mishandling. The Bench comprising Inder Singh Mehta (President) and Yogita Dutta (Member) affirmed the order of the District Consumer Commission, Shimla, which had earlier dismissed the complaint.
The complainant, Nishant Sharma, had purchased a Samsung Z Flip 3 mobile phone from Kiran Stationery Mart for ₹83,990 on 18 September 2021. The device was sold with the manufacturer’s warranty. Soon after the purchase, the complainant reported a defect in the LCD display. On 30 October 2021, the phone was taken to an authorised service centre, where the screen was replaced free of cost under the Samsung Care+ Accidental & Liquid Damage Protection (ADLD) Plan. The repaired device was returned to the complainant on 1 November 2021 in proper working condition.
Nearly ten months later, on 19 August 2022, the complainant again reported damage to the display. The service centre issued a repair estimate of ₹29,769. The manufacturer and service centre declined to carry out the repair free of cost, stating that the ADLD plan allowed only one screen replacement within a year and that the earlier replacement had already exhausted the benefit.
Aggrieved by the refusal, the complainant approached the District Consumer Commission, Shimla, alleging deficiency in service and seeking a second free repair. The District Commission dismissed the complaint, after which the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission.
Before the State Commission, Samsung contended that the complainant was not entitled to another free repair since the ADLD plan provided only a one-time screen replacement, which had already been availed in October 2021. It was further argued that the second damage was not due to any manufacturing defect but was the result of external pressure or mishandling, as reflected by the condition of the display. It was also submitted that Samsung was a separate legal entity from the protection plan provider and that the retailer was not an authorised dealer.
After examining the record, the State Commission observed that the complainant had failed to disclose the earlier screen replacement carried out under the ADLD plan. The Commission noted that the service records clearly showed that the phone had been repaired and returned in proper working condition in November 2021.
On perusal of the photographs of the device, the Commission found black spots and white lines on the LCD, which indicated physical damage caused by external pressure. It observed that under the company’s policy, warranty coverage does not extend to cases involving physical damage, liquid damage, or mishandling.
The Commission also noted that the ADLD plan specifically permitted only one screen replacement within a year, and that the complainant had already availed this benefit. It further found that the complainant had not produced any expert evidence to establish that the second defect was due to a manufacturing issue or deficiency in service.
Holding that no deficiency in service had been made out against the opposite parties, the Commission concluded that the demand for a second free repair was beyond the scope of the agreed warranty terms. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the order of the District Commission was upheld.
Cause Title: Nishant Sharma vs Kiran Stationary Mart
Case No: SC/2/A/227/2024
Coram: Inder Singh Mehta (President) and Yogita Dutta (Member)
