Back
Haridwar Consumer Commission Holds Liable for Selling Samsung Phone with
Haridwar, : In a significant ruling for consumer rights, the , held dealer liable for for selling a Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 3 5G mobile phone whose warranty had been activated before the date of purchase. The Commission directed the dealer to repair the phone or provide a new equivalent device, failing which a full refund of ₹75,000 with 6% annual interest, along with ₹10,000 for and ₹5,000 in , must be paid.
The Dispute: A Phone with a Shortened Warranty
The complainant, Aman, purchased the Samsung phone from on , for ₹75,000. The device came with a one-year warranty. After several months of use, the phone developed multiple defects—a black display, diminished sound output, and poor battery backup.
When Aman approached the dealer, he was directed to the . On , he took the phone for repair, only to be told that the warranty had expired on . The service centre had checked the device’s activation date and found it was first activated on , meaning the one-year warranty had already run out.
The Arguments: Who Was Responsible?
Aman contended that since he bought the phone on , the warranty should be valid until December 30, 2023. He argued that the dealer’s failure to disclose the earlier activation and the service centre’s refusal to repair amounted to , causing him mental and financial hardship.
, on the other hand, maintained that the phone was activated on , before Aman’s purchase. It argued that the dealer, , had sold the phone in its independent capacity, and that Samsung could not be held liable for the dealer’s actions. The manufacturer noted that it had no direct relationship with the consumer and that the warranty terms began from the activation date.
The Commission’s Legal Analysis
The Commission observed that the warranty should have been calculated from the actual date of purchase——not from the earlier activation date. The dealer’s failure to inform the consumer about the pre-activation constituted a clear .
Critically, the Commission distinguished the liability of the manufacturer from that of the dealer. Citing the ’s judgment in Tata Motors Ltd vs Antorio Paulo Vaz (2021), it noted that where the relationship between the manufacturer and the dealer is on a , the manufacturer cannot be automatically held liable for the dealer’s wrongful acts unless it is shown that the manufacturer had knowledge of or was involved in the misconduct. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest Samsung India knew about the dealer’s sale of a pre-activated phone.
Key Observations
The Commission stated: “ Since the complainant approached the service centre on , the Commission held that he should have received the benefit of warranty from the actual date of purchase. The dealer’s failure to disclose the earlier activation amounted to . ”
On the issue of manufacturer liability, it added: “ The manufacturer could not be held liable merely for the dealer’s acts. ”
The Final Decision
The complaint was partly allowed against and dismissed against the and Samsung India. The Commission ordered:
- must repair the phone free of cost within 45 days and return it to Aman in proper working condition.
- If the phone cannot be repaired, the dealer must provide a new phone of equivalent quality and value.
- In case of failure, the dealer must refund ₹75,000 with 6% simple interest per annum from the date of filing the complaint until payment.
- Additionally, the dealer must pay ₹10,000 for and ₹5,000 as .
If the order is not complied with within the stipulated time, the dealer will be liable to pay the entire amount with 8% annual interest.
This ruling reinforces the principle that dealers must fully disclose the warranty status of products at the time of sale, and that consumers are entitled to the full warranty period from the date of purchase, not from an undisclosed activation date.
