Samsung phone stops working in 2 months; company told to pay Rs 37,499

NEW DELHI: A district consumer commission in Kerala has directed Samsung and three others to refund Rs 22,499 to a customer after finding deficiency in service over failure to provide effective warranty service for a mobile phone that stopped working within two months of purchase. The commission also awarded Rs 10,000 for mental agony and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. The order was passed on August 31, 2026. Why did the customer approach the commission?According to the commission order, the customer purchased a Samsung Galaxy A15 5G mobile phone for Rs 22,499 on February 8, 2025, along with a compatible charger for Rs 1,399. The phone came with a one-year warranty. The customer said the phone suddenly stopped functioning on April 6, 2025, and did not respond even when the power button was pressed or when it was connected to a charger. He alleged that when he approached the dealer and an authorised Samsung service centre in Pathanamthitta, they directed him to another service centre in Kottayam, where he was told that the phone had a board-related problem and that repair would cost about Rs 10,000. The complainant further claimed that despite the phone being within the warranty period, he was asked to pay for the repair. When he refused, he was also allegedly asked to pay service charges for taking back the unrepaired phone. The phone was eventually returned without repair. The customer, who said he was a school teacher and also conducted online tuition classes, told the commission that he used the phone to record tutorial videos and conduct online classes. He claimed that he had to arrange another phone and suffered financial loss, inconvenience and mental agony. Samsung opposed the complaint, saying liquid had entered the phone and that salt traces and rust were found inside the handset. It claimed this amounted to mishandling and was therefore excluded from warranty coverage. What did the commission find about the warranty dispute?The bench comprising President George Baby and member Nishad Thankappan noted that the phone had become completely non-functional within about two months of purchase and that it was covered by a one-year warranty. The commission said Samsung had not produced independent technical material to establish that the damage was caused by the customer's actions or that the warranty exclusion applied. “When a manufacturer seeks to deny warranty service on the ground that the defect falls within an exclusion clause of the warranty, the manufacturer must establish the factual basis for such exclusion,” the commission held. It noted that Samsung had referred to liquid ingress, salt traces and rust, but had not produced a technical report, expert report, photographs, job card or other convincing evidence to establish the alleged damage or show that it was caused by the customer. “The mere assertion that liquid traces and rust were found inside the handset, without producing reliable technical evidence demonstrating the nature and cause of the alleged damage, cannot by itself be treated as sufficient proof of consumer mishandling, particularly when the device became defective within about two months of purchase,” the commission said. The commission also noted that the other service centres had not appeared before it or filed any response explaining their conduct. It found that the customer had been denied effective warranty service even though the phone became non-functional during the warranty period. “Nevertheless, the complainant is entitled to warranty protection unless the opposite party establishes a valid exclusion. Accordingly, this Commission finds deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in failing to provide effective warranty service to the complainant,” it held. The commission said the customer was entitled to a refund of the phone's purchase price as considerable time had passed without effective warranty repair. It partly allowed the complaint and directed all four opposite parties to jointly and severally pay Rs 22,499 to the customer against return of the defective phone. The commission also awarded Rs 10,000 for mental agony, inconvenience and harassment and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. The amounts have to be paid within 30 days of receipt of the judgment. If the refund and compensation are not paid within that period, they will carry 9 percent annual interest from the expiry of the 30-day period until realization.