Competition Commission of India (CCI): CCI has dismissed a complaint filed against Samsung India, alleging unfair business practices with respect to sale and supply of spare parts and equipments for its mobile phones. The grievance of the Informant primarily pertained to the alleged conduct of the Authorised Service Centre for not providing satisfactory services i.e., charging excessive amount for repair of his faulty mobile phone. He had alleged that such restrictive practices adopted by the Opposite Parties in conjunction with their respective Authorised Service Centres results in denial of market access to independent repair workshops which is in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. It was further submitted that by restricting sale and supply of genuine spare parts, diagnostic tools, equipments, technical information and know-how etc., Samsung has created a monopoly over supply of such genuine spare parts, diagnostic tools etc. and indirectly determining the sale price of the spare parts and repair and maintenance service charges. After perusal of the information, CCI observed that no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of the Competition Act, made out against Samsung in the matter. While terming the dispute as “consumer dispute”, CCI further noted that, “the Informant has submitted that like other Samsung Customer Care Centres, the Authorised Service Centre is situated in the residential area which is in violation of the Consumer Protection Act and that the Opposite Parties are not taking due care of its customers and are thus allowed to be exploited by their Authorised Service Centre by overcharging for repair of the mobiles. Thus, it is basically a dispute between a consumer and its service provider where consumer alleges deficiency in service being provided by the service provider. The Commission is of the opinion that it does not involve any issue relating to competition which attracts the provisions of the Act.” (Rajender Kumar Gupta v. Samsung India, 2014 CCI 76, decided on December 5, 2014)
Complaint against Samsung India alleging unfair trade practices, dismissed
Competition Commission of India (CCI): CCI has dismissed a complaint filed against Samsung India, alleging unfair business practices with respect to sale
Learned counsel for the appellant cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. K.B. Murleedharan and another; II (1994) CPJ 27 (NC). In the said case, the transactions between the manufacturer and dealer were as principal to principal. In the said case, the amount deposited by the complainant with the dealer had not passed on by the dealer to the manufacturer. It was held that the dealer was not acting as agent of the manufacturer. In the instant case, as has been stated above, Teleglobe Enterprises was the authorised agent of Samsung company and if any false assurance was given by the dealer to the complainant at the time of selling the LED T.V. in contravention of the warranty conditions of the manufacturing company, the company ought to have taken action against its dealer. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant as to what action has been taken by it against its dealer. It was submitted by the learned counsel for respondent – complainant that Teleglobe Enterprises is still the dealer of appellant – company and its dealership is still continuing. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant
– company that it has got no concern with the three year warranty mentioned by its dealer on the bill / cash memo at the time of selling the LED T.V. manufactured by the appellant – company to the complainant