January 06, 2026 : The Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed an appeal filed by a Shimla resident seeking a second free screen replacement for his Samsung Z Flip 3 mobile phone, holding that the benefit under the protection plan had already been exhausted and that the subsequent damage was due to mishandling.
The Bench of Justice Inder Singh Mehta (President) and Ms. Yogita Dutta (Member) upheld the order of the District Consumer Commission, Shimla, which had earlier dismissed the complaint.
Purchase and First Repair Under Protection Plan
The complainant, Nishant Sharma, had purchased a Samsung Z Flip 3 handset for ₹83,990 in September 2021 from Kiran Stationary Mart, Shimla. The device was covered under the manufacturer’s warranty and the Samsung Care+ Accidental and Liquid Damage Protection (ADLD) Plan.
Within a short period of purchase, the display developed an issue. On 30 October 2021, the phone was taken to an authorised service centre. As it was covered under the ADLD plan, the screen was replaced free of cost. The handset was returned on 1 November 2021 in proper working condition.
The Commission noted that the ADLD plan specifically allowed only one screen replacement within a one-year period.
Second Complaint and Chargeable Estimate
Nearly ten months later, on 19 August 2022, the complainant again approached the service centre with display damage. This time, the service centre issued a repair estimate of ₹29,769. The manufacturer declined to carry out the repair free of cost on the ground that the one-time screen replacement benefit under the ADLD plan had already been availed.
Aggrieved by the refusal, the complainant filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, seeking a second free repair.
Commission’s Observations
The State Commission carefully examined the service records and evidence placed on record.
It observed that the complainant had not disputed the fact that the first screen replacement was carried out under the ADLD plan and that the device had been returned in satisfactory working condition. The Commission also noted that the complainant had not filed any rebuttal denying this position.
On examining photographs of the handset, the Bench found black spots and white lines on the LCD panel. It concluded that the damage appeared to have resulted from external pressure or mishandling. The manufacturer’s warranty policy clearly excluded coverage in cases of physical damage, liquid damage, or mishandling.
The Commission further noted that the complainant had failed to produce any expert evidence to establish that the second defect was due to a manufacturing fault.
No Deficiency in Service Made Out
Holding that the ADLD plan provided only a one-time screen replacement and that the benefit had already been availed, the Commission ruled that the demand for a second free repair was beyond the agreed terms and conditions.
In the absence of proof of manufacturing defect or deficiency in service, the appeal was dismissed. The order of the District Consumer Commission was affirmed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Case Details
Cause Title: Nishant Sharma vs. Kiran Stationary Mart & Ors.
Case No.: SC/2/A/227/2024
Order Date: 05 January 2026
Coram: Justice Inder Singh Mehta (President) and Yogita Dutta (Member)
