Ernakulam District Commission Holds Samsung India Liable For Deficiency In Service For Recurring Defects In Newly Bought Refrigerator
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) presided over by DB Binu (President), Ramachandran V. (Member), and Sreevidhia TN (Member), found Samsung India responsible for deficiency in service. The District Commission pointed out a common practice with manufacturing companies. These companies often attract customers with ads, but then neglect their responsibility...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) presided over by DB Binu (President), Ramachandran V. (Member), and Sreevidhia TN (Member), found Samsung India responsible for deficiency in service. The District Commission pointed out a common practice with manufacturing companies. These companies often attract customers with ads, but then neglect their responsibility to provide necessary spare parts and consumables. This neglect affects the proper functioning of the product over its expected lifespan, causing a significant impact on consumer rights.
Brief Facts:
Dr Thirumeny M.J (“Complainant”) purchased a Samsung refrigerator model BS 604 litres on January 6, 2018, for a total of Rs. 72,000/-, with a ten-year warranty for the compressor. However, the refrigerator encountered multiple issues from the outset, necessitating repairs on three separate occasions. In November 2021, the freezer ceased functioning, and a technician identified the compressor as the root of the problem. Nevertheless, no remedial action was taken by Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd. (“Manufacturer”) of the refrigerator. Subsequently, the Complainant's legal counsel served a notice on Samsung, which offered a nominal compensation amount. The Complainant rejected this offer, citing the refrigerator's persistent defects. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam, Kerala (“District Commission”).
The Complainant contended that Samsung, being the manufacturer, bears the obligation to supply spare parts for the refrigerator for a minimum of ten years as per licensing conditions. The Complainant asserted that Samsung's failure to provide these spare parts for the malfunctioning refrigerator constitutes a deficiency in service. As a remedy, the Complainant requested a refund of the refrigerator's purchase price, which amounts to Rs. 72,000/-, along with interest accrued from the date of the complaint until realization. Additionally, the Complainant claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the mental distress, financial losses, and hardships endured due to the protracted absence of a functional refrigerator.
Samsung disputed the allegations put forth by the Complainant, contending that the complaint lacks due diligence. Samsung emphasized its strong reputation and extensive customer base within the electronics and mobile handset industry. Samsung argued that the mere presence of a defect in their product, the refrigerator in this instance, does not necessarily imply a manufacturing defect; it could have resulted from mishandling or other external factors. Samsung points out that the Consumer Protection Act necessitates expert opinion when the defect is not readily apparent.
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission examined the recurring defects in the refrigerator. The evidence revealed that the refrigerator malfunctioned on multiple occasions, with repair attempts made on various dates. Notably, the compressor was replaced on one of these dates. A customer service record dated November 20, 2021, explicitly indicated that the defect of internal leakage was beyond repair.
The District Commission referred to the case of Nachiket P. Shirgaonkar v/s Pandit Automotive Ltd. & Another, Revision Petition No. 3519 of 2006 in Appeal No. 1953 of 2005 where the NCDRC noted that when a product is found to be defective from day one, it indicates manufacturing defects, and there's no need to refer the product to a third party for an opinion. In this context, it was noted that the refrigerator in question was purchased on January 6, 2018, and was accompanied by a ten-year warranty. Despite repairs, it experienced multiple issues, rendering it unfit for use. Given this situation, the Complainant's plea carried substantial weight, especially when a product malfunctions repeatedly within a short time frame of its purchase.
The District Commission also deliberated on the broader implications of the case, highlighting the practice by manufacturing companies of enticing consumers with advertisements to purchase their products, only to later evade their responsibility to provide spare parts and consumables necessary for the product's functionality throughout its average lifespan. This practice was deemed to adversely impact consumers across different product categories, compelling them to abandon otherwise functional products and, in effect, constituting unfair trade practices.
Consequently, the District Commission directed Samsung to pay Rs. 57,600/- to the Complainant, after deducting 20% depreciation from the original purchase price of Rs. 72,000/-. An additional amount of Rs. 30,000/- was awarded to the Complainant as compensation for the deficiency in service and the unfair trade practices committed by Samsung, along with Rs. 10,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
Case: Dr Thirumeny M.J. vs Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd
Case No.: CC/21/516
Advocate for the Complainant: Adv. Tom Joseph
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. K.S. Arundas