Manufacturer Dutybound To Address Issues Even If Complaint Is Raised Through Intermediary, Chandigarh District Commission Order Samsung To Resolve Issues

Brief Facts:

The Complainant purchased Samsung AC for Rs. 30,000/- on EMI, which was delivered by a Flipkart agent. However, shortly after purchase, the AC ceased to function properly, failing to provide the expected cooling effect. Despite multiple attempts to address the issue by contacting Flipkart's customer care services, the complaint remained unresolved. Flipkart directed the Complainant to contact Samsung directly, as Samsung was the manufacturer. However, Samsung refused to address the issue, stating that there was a lack of sales records and thereby declining to provide any repair or replacement. Subsequently, the Complainant sent a legal notice to Flipkart and Samsung but no response was received by the Complainant. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Flipkart and Samsung.

In response, Flipkart contested the complaint, arguing that it was not directly responsible for the alleged defects in the product or the after-sales service. It claimed that the actual seller of the product, a third-party seller not involved in the proceedings, and the manufacturer were responsible for addressing such grievances. It maintained that it merely provided the online platform for the transaction and that the sale and purchase contracts were between the Complainant and the seller. It argued that the alleged defect was a manufacturing issue, not within its purview.

Samsung asserted that no complaint was registered by the Complainant with its service centre. It claimed that its online system did not contain any records of complaints from the Complainant, indicating that no valid complaint was lodged.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that the Complainant initially raised the issue of the non-functioning AC with Flipkart. Moreover, the complaint was lodged within the warranty period. The District Commission held that Flipkart had a duty to advise the Complainant to address the matter with Samsung for necessary repairs or to facilitate communication with them. Further, the District Commission held that Samsung should have resolved the Complainant's issue within the warranty period, given that the complaint was filed within one year of the AC's purchase.

Consequently, the District Commission directed Samsung to promptly address the problems associated with the malfunctioning AC as detailed in the Complainant's submission within a 30-day timeframe. Failure to comply will result in Samsung and Instakart Services being liable to pay a lump sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant.

Case Title: Naveen Sharma vs Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd and Others

Case Number: CC/307/2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order