2023 QCCQ 7951, 2023 QCCQ 7951

Verma c. Samsung Electronics Canada Inc. 2023 QCCQ 7951 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL “Civil Division” No: 500-32-713668-202 DATE: November 1 st , 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE MÉLANIE DUGRÉ, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ RAVI VERMA Plaintiff v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CANADA INC.

Defendant __________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Ravi Verma claims $5,947.28 from Samsung Electronics Canada Inc. ( Samsung ), alleging the presence of a defect on a 65- inch TV he bought in December 2019. [ 2 ] Mr.

Verma is asking for the reimbursement of the sale price, $947.28, and $5,000 in moral damages. [ 3 ] Samsung denies the existence of a defect on the TV and alleges that the problem is caused by a physical damage, which occurred after the purchase, and for which Samsung, as the manufacturer, is not liable. ISSUE [ 4 ] The Court must determine whether Samsung is liable for the defect on Mr. Verma’s TV. [ 5 ] In civil matters, the burden of proof is on Plaintiff’s shoulders, in accordance with the principle provided in

article 2803 of the Civil Code of Québec ( C.C.Q. ), which states that “[a] person seeking to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based.” [ 6 ] The Court decides on the balance of probabilities, [1] which means that the Court must determine what is more probable and plausible, rather than improbable and implausible. [ 7 ] In addition, when the evidence adduced is not sufficiently convincing, or if the evidence is contradictory and it is impossible for the judge to identify the truth, the party upon whom the burden of proof lies will lose. [2] ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 8 ] On December 24, 2019, Mr.

Verma bought the 65-inch Samsung TV at a La Source store. [3] [ 9 ] For over seven months, things went smoothly and no issue was identified. [ 10 ] On August 15, 2020, Mr. Verma noticed a dot on the right lower end of the screen. The dot became a line and the next day, three quarters of the screen had turned black. [4] [ 11 ] Mr. Verma called Samsung’s service center on 23 occasions between August 16 and 28, 2020. [5] [ 12 ] On August 21, 2020, a technician from ÉlectroExperts Inc., Ray Gélineau, went to Mr.

Verma’s house to carry out an examination of the TV to determine whether the problem was covered by the manufacturer’s warranty. [ 13 ] The conclusion of the technician is that the condition of the TV has been caused by physical damage, which is not covered by the warranty. [6] [ 14 ] At the hearing, Mr. Stéphane Dugas, who works as a technician for ElectroExperts Inc., testified and confirmed Mr. Gélineau’s opinion that physical damage had been caused to the TV. [ 15 ] More specifically, Mr. Dugas commented on the photo of Mr. Verma’s TV, as taken on August 21, 2020 by Mr. Gélineau. [7] [ 16 ] Mr.

Dugas explained that the photo taken by Mr. Gélineau clearly shows a site of impact on the screen. Because TV screens are fragile, such impact does not have to result from a strong human intervention and can occur accidentally, while cleaning the screen for

example. [ 17 ] Furthermore, the photo reveals several lines on the screen, which go into various directions. [ 18 ] According to Mr. Dugas, had a manufacturing defect been the cause of the problem, the lines on the screen would have been straight and parallel. In the present case, the spider shape of the lines supports Samsung’s position that they result from a physical damage. [ 19 ] Samsung’s allegation of a physical damage is strongly denied by Mr.

Verma who insists that the TV was installed on the wall by a professional technician, and that the problem on the TV appeared suddenly, as his family and himself were quietly watching TV. [ 20 ] Nonetheless, Mr. Verma has offered no counter-expertise to rebut Samsung’s position that the problem is the result of a physical damage to the TV. [ 21 ] Mr. Verma only submits news articles published on the Internet, reporting that other customers have experienced similar issues with Samsung TVs. [8] [ 22 ] With respect, this evidence is not strong enough to support the allegation that the TV, which was used by Mr.

Verma for over seven months, had a hidden defect when it was purchased, which would trigger Samsung’s liability as a manufacturer. [ 23 ] Caselaw in similar matters [9] has confirmed that evidence must be offered to support the allegation that the issue results from a manufacturer’s defect and to rebut expert evidence that physical damage is involved. [ 24 ] The Court finds that in either case, Mr. Verma did not present such evidence and consequently, his application must be dismissed.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Ravi Verma’s application; CONDEMNS Ravi Verma to pay to Samsung Electronics Canada Inc. $261 in legal costs for the contestation. __________________________________ MÉLANIE DUGRÉ, J.C.Q. Hearing date: October 3, 2023