Rohtak, Haryana: A consumer court in Haryana has ordered Samsung India to refund Rs 88,000 to a customer whose Galaxy Z Flip6 developed faults while still under warranty. The court said Samsung could not prove that the customer had damaged the phone himself.
What Happened
Vicky Kapoor bought the foldable phone from a shop called Guru Simran Mobile in Rohtak on December 18, 2024. He paid Rs 1,09,999.
Within days, he says, the phone started overheating and dropping the network during calls. In the last week of January 2025, he took it to a Samsung authorised service centre. The technician reset the phone and promised the problem would be fixed, but did not prepare a job sheet.
The problems returned in March 2025. The service centre reset the phone again, and Kapoor says he lost his data this time.
On July 28, 2025, the phone heated up during a call and the screen went completely black. Kapoor handed it over to the service centre, which issued a job sheet marking the phone as “full warranty” and noting the problem as a black, non-working display.
The next day, he says, the centre asked for Rs 45,000 to repair it and refused to do the work under warranty.
Samsung’s Defence
Samsung rejected the claims. The company said the phone had dents on its hinge and scratches on the screen, and argued that the customer’s rough handling had damaged the display. It said this made the phone ineligible for free repairs. Samsung also said it had given a repair estimate and that the phone was out of warranty because of the physical damage.
Kapoor asked the court for a full refund with interest, Rs 50,000 for mental harassment and Rs 11,000 for legal costs.
What the Commission Found
The Rohtak District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission looked at the purchase bill, service records, photographs and other papers from both sides. The bench was headed by president Nagender Singh Kadian, with members Dr Tripti Pannu and Dr Vijender Singh.
The judges noticed a key problem in Samsung’s case. The first job sheet, dated July 28, 2025, listed the phone as under warranty. A later one, dated August 26, 2025, called it out of warranty. According to the bench, Samsung gave no reliable evidence to explain this change.
The commission also said Samsung had not backed up its damage claim with any technical report. The photographs were not enough to prove the customer was at fault.
The bench concluded that the phone developed a defect during the warranty period and that Samsung failed to repair or replace it as required. It called this a “deficiency in service.”
The Final Order
Since Kapoor had used the phone for over seven months, the commission cut 20 per cent from the purchase price to account for depreciation. Samsung India Electronics, as the manufacturer, must now:
- Refund Rs 88,000
- Pay 9 per cent yearly interest on that amount from August 22, 2025, the date the complaint was filed, until the money is paid
- Pay Rs 5,000 for mental agony and harassment
- Pay Rs 5,000 for legal expenses
The company has 30 days from receiving the order to comply. The phone is already with the service centre.
Without interest, Samsung must pay Rs 98,000 in total. Kapoor did not get everything he asked for, as the court refused a full refund and awarded much less than the compensation and legal costs he had demanded.
Why It Matters
The case is a reminder for buyers to keep every bill and job sheet, and to insist on written records at service centres. In this case, those papers helped the customer prove his phone was under warranty.
