STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/698/2024 NICE PRIYAN PRESENT ADDRESS - KANDAMKULANGARA HOUSE AYILUR POST CHITTUR TALUK PALAKKAD 678510,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus THE MANAGER SALES SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - 6 TH FLOOR DLF CENTRE SANSAD MARG NEWDELHI

110001,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 19/03/2026

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.698/2024 ORDER DATED : 19.03.2026 (Against the order in C.C.No.150/2023 on the files of DCDRC, Palakkad)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT:

Nice Priyan, S/o Sasikumar, Kandamkulangara House, Ayilur Post, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad - 678 510 (Party in person)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. th The Manager (Sales), Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd, 6 Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110 001 (Adv. Ambili George & Adv. Smitha Bijukumar)

2.

The Proprietor, SACS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Madurai, Tamil Nadu -

625 002 ORDER HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.150/2023 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainant purchased a Samsung mobile phone from the second opposite party on 06.01.2021 for Rs.1,04,999/-. The said mobile phone was manufactured by the first opposite party. Within a short span of time, the display of the mobile phone became defective. The matter was intimated to the authorised service centre of the opposite parties. However, the defects could not be rectified. The complainant was informed that the defect was due to hardware imbalance.

3. The first opposite party filed a version admitting the purchase of the mobile phone by the complainant from the second opposite party on 06.01.2021. The first opposite party also admitted that the complainant approached their service centre with an issue in the display. The complaint was registered and after examination by the engineer, it was found that the battery of the handset had to be replaced. The complaint was reported after the warranty period. It was further contended that the above-said defect happened due to the mishandling of the handset by the complainant.

There was no manufacturing defect.

4. The second opposite party did not file any version.

5. Before the District Commission, the complainant filed proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked for the complainant. The first opposite party also filed proof affidavit. Exhibits B1 to B4 were marked for the first opposite party. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission dismissed the complaint.

6. Service is complete. However, there is no representation for the second respondent. Heard the appellant in person and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Perused the records.

7. The appellant has submitted that the District Commission ought to have granted an opportunity to the appellant to get the mobile phone examined by an expert before dismissing the complaint. It appears from the order under appeal that the District Commission dismissed the complaint, holding that the complainant could not establish that the mobile phone had any manufacturing defect. It also appears that no expert opinion was obtained by the District Commission with regard to the defects alleged by the complainant.

8. Section 38(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides that if the complainant alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Commission shall call for a report from the expert concerned before proceeding with the complaint. However, in this case, no report from any expert was called for before deciding the complaint. The complainant has