Samsung told to refund Rs 98,000 with 9% interest over Z Flip6 screen failure

AI generated image used for representative purpose

NEW DELHI: A consumer commission in Haryana has directed Samsung India to refund Rs 88,000 for a Z Flip6 phone that developed problems during the warranty period, after the company failed to establish that physical damage caused the defect.

The commission also ordered the company to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.

Samsung Z Flip6 develops heating and display problems

According to the commission order, Vicky Kapoor, the complainant, purchased a Samsung Z Flip6 from Guru Simran Mobile in Rohtak on December 18, 2024, for Rs 1,09,999.Within a few days of the purchase, the phone allegedly began heating up and experiencing network drops during calls.

The complainant approached Samsung's authorised service centre, in the last week of January 2025. Technician at the centre reset the phone but did not prepare a job sheet, and assured him that the problem would be resolved.The same problems reportedly returned in March 2025 and the service centre again reset the device. Kapoor alleged that this reset of the phone resulted in the loss of his phone data.On July 28, 2025, the phone heated up during a call and its screen went black.

The complainant gave the device at the service centre. The job sheet issued that day recorded the phone's warranty status as “full warranty” and described the problem as “display not working, black display”.When he visited the service centre the following day, he was told that the repair would cost Rs 45,000, according to the complaint. Kapoor allegedly asked them to repair the phone under warranty, but the service centre refused.Samsung disputed the allegations, contending that the phone had dents on its hinge and scratches on the screen, causing damage to the display. It argued that the damage resulted from mishandling by the customer and made the phone ineligible for warranty repairs.The company also alleged that a repair estimate had been provided and added that the phone was outside the standard warranty because of physical damage.Kapoor sought a refund of Rs 1,09,999 with interest, Rs 50,000 in compensation for mental harassment and Rs 11,000 towards litigation expenses from the commission.

Commission's finding on warranty dispute

The bench comprising president Nagender Singh Kadian and members Dr Tripti Pannu and Dr Vijender Singh, examined the purchase invoice, service records, photographs and other documents submitted from both the sides.It noted that the first job sheet, issued on July 28, 2025, recorded the phone as being under warranty, however, a subsequent job sheet dated August 26, 2025, classified the phone as being out of warranty.The commission found that Samsung had not produced reliable evidence explaining the change in warranty status."The opposite parties have not placed on record any cogent and reliable evidence to explain the change in the warranty status from ‘Full Warranty’ to ‘Out of Warranty’," the bench said.On the company's claim that physical damage had caused the defect, the commission said that this claim has not been supported by any solid report or evidence.It also examined the photographs submitted by Samsung but found them insufficient to establish that the customer was responsible for the damage."In the absence of such technical evidence, the contention of the opposite parties that the defect was caused by physical damage cannot be accepted merely on the basis of the photographs placed on record," the order noted.It then held that the phone had developed a defect during the warranty period and that the opposite parties had failed to provide the required repair or replacement under the warranty.

It found deficiency in service on their part.Considering that the phone had been used for more than seven months, the commission directed Samsung, as the manufacturer, to refund the purchase price after deducting 20 percent towards depreciation."Accordingly, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1, being the manufacturer of the mobile phone, is liable to refund the purchase price after deducting 20 percent towards depreciation, considering that the complainant used the mobile phone for more than seven months," the commission concluded.

Final order

The Rohtak District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed the complaint and directed Samsung India Electronics to:

• Refund Rs 88,000 after deducting 20 percent depreciation from the original purchase price of Rs 1,09,999.
• Pay 9 percent annual interest on the refund from August 22, 2025, the date the complaint was filed, until realisation.
• Pay Rs 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
• Pay Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses.

The company was directed to comply within 30 days of receiving a copy of the order. The commission noted that the phone was already in the possession of the service centre.The fixed payout ordered, excluding interest, is Rs 98,000. The commission did not order a refund of the full purchase price or award the entire compensation and litigation expenses sought by the complainant.