5 min readNew DelhiJul 1, 2026 07:00 PM IST
First published on: Jul 1, 2026 at 07:00 PM IST
An Uttarakhand District Consumer Commission has held Samsung guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice over its alleged refusal to provide service under warranty to a customer by claiming the handset was an “overseas model”. The electronics major was therefore asked to refund Rs 43,998 to the consumer.
A bench of president Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal and member Lakshman Singh Rawat also awarded Rs 20,000 in compensation, Rs 10,000 in litigation costs, and imposed a Rs 50,000 penalty on Samsung for unfair trade practice.
“In the commission’s view, if the mobile phone was in fact an overseas model, the opposite parties ought to have clearly disclosed this fact to the complainants at the time of sale. No material on record indicates that any such disclosure was ever made. The commission observed that Samsung had marketed and sold a mobile phone which it itself claimed to be an overseas model and, therefore, not covered by warranty in India,” the commission said on June 11.
The order noted that such conduct, in the commission’s view, amounted to a deliberate deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice, and this practice could not, in any manner, be regarded as fair or protective of consumers’ interests. It continued, “As a result, the complainants suffered not only mental agony and financial loss but were also compelled to institute the present consumer complaint to seek redressal.”
Samsung refused free warranty repair
The complainant filed by Anam Ahmed Shamsi and Zoya Khalid Shamsi against a dealer, Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd, and Amazon. The first complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy Z Flip mobile phone for Rs 43,998 through Amazon on 18 June 2023, manufactured by Samsung, for complainant number two, who is her sister and a second-year MBBS student. The mobile phone was covered by a one-year warranty.
It was alleged that within approximately two months of the purchase, the phone’s display stopped functioning. Complainant number two approached the nearest authorised service centre for repair of the handset. However, the service centre informed her that the mobile phone would be repaired only on payment of charges and refused to provide warranty service. The same was also communicated to complainant number one.
Samsung claimed overseas model exclusion
Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd filed its written statement, and as a preliminary objection, it contended that the complainants had concealed the true and material facts and instituted the present complaint before the Commission by suppressing relevant information.
It was further submitted that the complaint was baseless, vague, and motivated, and had been filed with mala fide intent. It was further submitted that the complainant’s mobile phone was found to have a broken and damaged display, which could be repaired or replaced only on payment of charges. Therefore, it contended that no question of deficiency in service arose. It was further argued that it has no role or control over the business operations of the dealer/retailer.
It contended that the mobile phone in question was an overseas model, which is not officially sold in India, and that after-sales service for such overseas models is not available in India. Since the said handset had been sold to the complainant by the dealer, they alone were the proper party to answer the allegations made by the complainant.
Samsung contended that since the handset was an overseas model, it was not covered under warranty in India. It further stated that the complainant’s mobile phone could be repaired only on a chargeable basis, but the complainant declined the paid repair.
The commission noted that the notice was duly served on the dealer, but it neither appeared nor filed a written statement, leading to the closure of its defence, and notice to Amazon Retail Pvt Ltd was returned as “refused”; accordingly, the commission deemed service sufficient and proceeded ex parte against it.
No overseas model proof: Order
- In the commission’s view, since the display of the mobile phone stopped functioning within two months of its purchase, it can reasonably be inferred that the handset suffered from a manufacturing defect.
- The authorised service centre of Samsung refused to repair the complainant’s mobile phone free of cost under warranty on the grounds that it was an overseas model, as recorded in the job cards.
- However, the opposite parties failed to produce any evidence on record to establish that the handset was indeed an overseas model.
- Nor was any such information reflected in the product details obtained by the complainants from the internet.
Significance of ruling
The ruling reinforces that manufacturers cannot deny warranty claims by merely branding a product as an “overseas model” without proving it or disclosing the fact at the time of sale. It affirms that undisclosed warranty exclusions constitute unfair trade practices and strengthens consumer protection against misleading sales and arbitrary warranty refusals.
Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Uttarakhand helpline: 1800-180-4188) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
District consumer commission was dealing with a plea of a couple regarding their cancellation of honeymoon plan due to missing passport. (AI-generated Image) 
Share
