Consumer Commission Issues Judgment Against Samsung for Screen Failures
The Kolkata District Consumer Commission has recently held Samsung India accountable for a deficiency in service following its refusal to provide warranty repair for a Galaxy Z Flip 3 phone. This decision comes amid reports of a global pattern of screen failures in Samsung’s foldable phones, as highlighted in a U.S. class action lawsuit. On July 3, the Commission, led by President Kollol Chattopadhyay and Member Udayan Roy, directed Samsung to either replace the faulty device or reimburse the complainant ₹85,000. Additionally, Samsung was ordered to pay ₹25,000 in compensation and ₹10,000 to cover litigation expenses.
Case Background and Consumer Complaint
The complainant, a resident of Kolkata, had purchased the Galaxy Z Flip 3 5G on January 29, 2022, for ₹85,000. Within the warranty period, specifically on November 15, 2022, a black shadow appeared on the screen near its fold, which expanded over time, rendering the device unusable. Upon contacting Samsung’s authorized service center, the complainant was informed that repairs would cost ₹29,849. The damage was described as “accidental and liquid damage,” despite the phone still being under warranty.
Legal Proceedings and Commission’s Findings
After unsuccessful mediation attempts with the West Bengal Consumer Affairs Department, the complainant approached the Consumer Commission. The complaint referenced the December 2022 U.S. class action lawsuit, Lewis v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., alongside an investigation by law firm Migliaccio and Rathod LLP. Both the lawsuit and the investigation identified screen cracking and failure along the fold as a design defect present in Samsung’s foldable phones.
Samsung argued that its service engineer had discovered a crack on the side of the handset, indicating external damage from dropping the phone or applying excessive pressure on the screen. The company denied any manufacturing defect or service deficiency, requesting the complaint’s dismissal. Notably, the authorized service center and the seller did not respond to the complaint and were proceeded against ex parte.
Commission’s Decision and Implications
The Commission dismissed Samsung’s defense by relying heavily on the company’s repair estimate provided when the complainant first reported the issue. The estimate identified the internal display panel as needing replacement, rather than the outer cover glass, which is typically damaged in a drop. “The company has not explained why an external impact that supposedly cracked the body would require replacement of the internal OCTA display as the primary repair item,” the Commission noted. This observation led to the conclusion that Samsung failed to prove mishandling, resulting in the order for compensation.
