Order Name: Unnamed Complainant vs Samsung and Flipkart
Case No.: Unspecified
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh, consisting of Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member), has issued a ruling concerning a malfunctioning Samsung air conditioner. The Commission has given Samsung a 30-day period to address the customer’s concerns. If they fail to do so, Samsung will be obligated to pay Rs. 5,000 in compensation for causing the customer distress and inconvenience.
Here’s a rundown of the situation. A customer bought a Samsung air conditioner for Rs. 30,000 on EMI from Flipkart. Not long after, the air conditioner began malfunctioning, failing to provide the cooling it was supposed to. The customer repeatedly contacted Flipkart’s customer service, but the problem remained unresolved. Flipkart advised the customer to reach out to Samsung directly, as they produced the unit. However, Samsung declined to help, citing a lack of sales records as the reason for their refusal to repair or replace the unit. After receiving no response to a legal notice sent to both Flipkart and Samsung, the aggrieved customer brought their case to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh.
Flipkart defended itself by stating that it merely provided an online platform for the transaction. They argued that the actual seller of the product, a third-party not present in the court proceedings, and Samsung, the manufacturer, were the ones responsible for addressing the customer’s grievances. Samsung, on the other hand, claimed that the customer had not registered a complaint with their service center, stating their online system showed no records of such a complaint.
The Commission considered the facts and noted that the customer initially reported the problem to Flipkart and did so within the warranty period. The Commission stated that Flipkart should have guided the customer in contacting Samsung for necessary repairs or helped facilitate such communication. Furthermore, the Commission ruled that Samsung should have addressed the customer’s issue within the warranty period, considering that the complaint was lodged within a year of the air conditioner’s purchase.
As a result, the Commission instructed Samsung to promptly address the malfunctioning air conditioner issue detailed in the customer’s submission within a 30-day period. If Samsung fails to do so, both Samsung and Instakart Services will be required to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation for causing the customer mental distress and inconvenience.
This ruling underlines the responsibility of manufacturers and online marketplaces in addressing customer complaints promptly and effectively. It serves as a reminder that consumers have rights and can seek legal recourse when these rights are not respected.
