Ernakulam District Commission Holds Samsung India Liable For Not Providing Post Purchase Services

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant bought a Samsung refrigerator from Samsung India/manufacturer, which came with a ten-year warranty for the compressor. However, the refrigerator faced numerous problems and underwent three separate repairs. Later, when the freezer stopped working, a technician revealed that the compressor was the issue, but the manufacturer took no action to fix it. The manufacturer stated that they no longer had the necessary parts for this model and offered minimal compensation, which the complainant rejected, citing the persistent defects in the refrigerator. Due to ongoing issues, the complainant had to purchase a new one. The complainant argues that the manufacturer is obligated to provide spare parts for the product for at least ten years, as per licensing conditions, and their failure to do so constitutes a deficiency in service. As a remedy, the complainant requests a refund of the refrigerator's price (Rs. 72,000) along with interest from the complaint date until realization. Additionally, the complainant seeks Rs. 50,000 as compensation for mental distress, financial losses, and hardships endured due to the prolonged absence of a functional refrigerator. The complaint requests that these reliefs be granted along with any associated costs.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The manufacturer argued that they sent a service engineer who replaced the heater and compressor within the warranty in response to the complainant's cooling concerns. After repair, additional cooling issues arose due to internal leakage. The service center offered a 65% depreciated refund as goodwill, but the complainant sought commercial solutions. The manufacturer contended that the refrigerator issues resulted from physical damage and mishandling outside the warranty period. They stated these damages weren't covered by the warranty and accused the complainant of suppressing facts. The manufacturer requested the Commission to dismiss the complaint, asserting no deficiency in their service and no entitlement to relief for the complainant.

Observations by the Commission

The commission observed that the manufacturer admitted the defect was unfixable. The complainant stressed that, as per licensing conditions, the manufacturer should offer spare parts for ten years, and failing to do so constitutes a service deficiency. The commission considered the product's repeated failures, evidence from both sides and unaddressed issues during the warranty period. While India lacks a dedicated Right to Repair law, the commission referred to the case of Shri Shamsher Kataria v. Honda Siel Cars Limited& Ors, which dealt with limiting consumers to authorized dealers. Additionally, the commission cited Sanjeev Nirwani v. HCL, where the court ruled that companies must supply spare parts beyond the warranty period, or it would be considered an unfair trade practice. The commission concluded that the manufacturer's inability to provide spare parts shortly after purchase questions their commitment to post-purchase service, constituting a deficiency in service in this case.

The commission directed the manufacturer to pay Rs. 57,600/- to the complainant (after deducting 20% depreciation from Rs. 72,000) along with Rs. 30,000 as compensation for the deficiency in service and the unfair trade practices they committed and for the mental agony and physical hardships sustained by the complainant. The opposite party shall also pay Rs.10,000 for the cost of the proceedings.