- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Chandigarh Consumer Commission Orders Samsung to Fix Malfunctioning AC or Face Penalty
Chandigarh Consumer Commission Orders Samsung to Fix Malfunctioning AC or Face Penalty
A Chandigarh resident has won a consumer case against Samsung after their newly purchased AC malfunctioned. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (Chandigarh bench), presided over by President Pawanjit Singh and Member Suresh Kumar Sardana, directed Samsung to address the issue within 30 days or face a penalty of ₹5,000 for causing inconvenience to the customer.
The customer (complainant) purchased a Samsung AC for ₹30,000 on EMI through Flipkart. Soon after, the AC stopped functioning properly, failing to cool effectively. The complainant contacted Flipkart's customer care multiple times, but the issue remained unresolved.
Flipkart claimed they were just a platform and not responsible for after-sales service. They directed the customer to contact Samsung directly. However, Samsung refused to acknowledge the complaint, citing a lack of sales records in their system.
Feeling frustrated, the customer filed a complaint against both Flipkart and Samsung with the Consumer Commission after the two companies failed to respond to his legal notices.
The Commission observed that the issue was raised with Flipkart within the warranty period. They held Flipkart partially responsible for not guiding the customer towards Samsung for repairs or facilitating communication. More importantly, the Commission noted the purchase was within a year, making it Samsung's responsibility to address the warranty claim.
The Commission directed Samsung to fix the AC within 30 days. If Samsung fails to comply, both Samsung and Flipkart will be jointly liable to pay a compensation of ₹5,000 for causing mental stress and inconvenience to the customer.