Warranty denied over ‘scratches’, Samsung told to fix Z Flip 4 phone or pay Rs 1.1 lakh

Company deficient on its part: Court

• The consumer body held that Samsung and its authorised service centre were deficient in service for refusing to repair the handset despite it being within the warranty period.
• The commission partly allowed the complaint and directed Samsung and the service centre to repair the phone within one month.
• If they fail to do so, they must refund Rs 90,000 with 5 per cent annual interest from the date of filing of the complaint until payment.
• The commission also directed Samsung and the service centre to pay Rs 20,000 towards mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

4 years of litigation

• The case of the complainant is that on August 30, 2022, he purchased a Samsung Z Flip 4 mobile phone for Rs 90,000 from a store called The Mobile Zone.
• On August 5, 2023, the said phone started facing problems with its sensor and speaker.
• Accordingly, on the same day, the complainant had submitted it to the store for repair under warranty. After conducting a full inspection of the phone, they issued a “service request sheet/job sheet”.
• As per Samsung policy, the company provides a warranty to every customer for one year from the date of purchase of the mobile phone.
• It was further pleaded that on August 8, 2023, the complainant received a phone call from the company stating that the phone was not eligible for repair under warranty because there were many scratches and physical damages on the phone and that they did not consider the product with scratches to be under warranty.
• The complainant approached the company directly to avail of his phone warranty on its toll-free number and email ID, but the service care centre also refused to repair the complainant’s phone under warranty.
• It was argued by the complainant that the company and service care had dishonest intentions towards providing the phone warranty, as he had allegedly submitted the phone in a pristine condition in service care, having just sensor and speaker problems in it.

Needlessly impleaded as party: Samsung

The company argued that the complaint merits dismissal, pointing out that they have unnecessarily been impleaded as a party. They also stated that no cause of action arose for the complainant to file the complaint against the company.

It was argued that the complainant mishandled and negligently used the mobile phone due to which the handset got physically damaged. The handset was submitted to Samsung Care after over 11 months of purchase and extensive usage. The problem reported by the complainant was ‘LCD Blink’ and ‘unable to open properly’.

It was added that, as per warranty terms and conditions, the handset is out of warranty as it has been physically damaged. It was further pleaded that the complainant has not set out any legitimate ground entitling him to replacement of the mobile phone with damages and litigation costs.

The company argued that it was the complainant’s legal duty to establish his claims that the phone suffered from defects, but no such report has been adduced by the complainant till date.

It was further claimed that the technology used by the company in manufacturing world-class electronic products was highly sophisticated. Thus, no question of any deficiency in service on the part of the answering company arises.

Samsung was represented by advocate Sourabh Ohri in the matter.

Significance of ruling

This ruling underscores that manufacturers cannot refuse warranty obligations without sufficient justification. If a product develops defects during the warranty period, the company must either rectify it or compensate the consumer appropriately.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 or 1800-11-4000 for assistance.