Rs 1 lakh flagship phone starts overheating within 2 weeks: Buyer denied replacement during warranty wins full refund from Flipkart, Samsung and others

When you spend Rs 1 lakh on a flagship phone, the last thing you expect is for it to start overheating within the first two weeks. That is exactly what happened to a Kerala resident, and when he went looking for help, every party involved pointed a finger at someone else.

A consumer commission in Kannur has now put an end to that blame game, holding Flipkart, Samsung India, its authorised service centre, and the third-party seller jointly liable, and ordering them to either fix the phone for free or refund the full purchase price of Rs 1 lakh.

What happened


Sreekanth Thekkan, a resident of Kanhirode in Kannur district, purchased a Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra 5G on 27 January 2024 through Flipkart for Rs 1 lakh. The phone was delivered two days later on 29 January.

Problems showed up almost immediately. The phone began overheating, and the camera quality fell short of what Samsung had advertised. By 12 February 2024, just 14 days after delivery, Sreekanth had already walked into the Samsung authorised service centre in Kannur, Bright Care, to report the issue.

The service centre examined the phone, told him the heat was normal, updated the software, and handed it back. It did not replace the device, saying it was not authorised to do so without the manufacturer's approval.

Sreekanth then went back to Flipkart and raised a complaint there. That too went nowhere. With no resolution from either side, he filed a consumer complaint before the Kannur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in April 2024, three months after buying the phone.

How each party tried to avoid responsibility

What followed in the commission was a textbook case of everyone trying to pass the buck.

Flipkart said it was only an intermediary platform and had no direct relationship with the buyer. The actual seller, it said, was a third-party company called CIGFIL Ltd, and any manufacturing defect was between the customer and the manufacturer.

The Samsung authorised service centre, Bright Care, said it could only issue a Dead on Arrival certificate and that the actual replacement or repair had to be handled by the seller. It maintained the overheating was within normal range.

Samsung India, the manufacturer listed as the third opposite party, took a different line entirely. It claimed the complainant had purchased a second-hand phone and that it could not address any issue without seeing the warranty card. It also argued the complaint was defective because the actual seller had not been made a party to the case.

That last objection prompted Sreekanth to add the seller, CIGFIL Ltd, as the fourth opposite party. CIGFIL then filed its own version saying it was merely a reseller of products manufactured by others, that its role ended the moment the product was delivered, and that any defect was the manufacturer's problem, not theirs.

What the commission found

The commission cut through all of it by looking at the two documents the complainant had produced.

The first was the tax invoice from CIGFIL dated 27 January 2024, which clearly showed the purchase price, the purchase date, and confirmed the phone carried a one-year manufacturer's warranty for the device and six months for in-box accessories.

The second was the service request acknowledgement issued by the Samsung service centre on 14 February 2024, which recorded that the complainant had approached them within 17 days of purchase and that the phone was within the warranty period at the time.

Samsung's own warranty document, submitted as evidence by Samsung India, also confirmed the one-year warranty on the device.

The commission noted that none of the opposite parties produced any oral or documentary evidence to support their claims that the phone was second-hand, that the defect had occurred outside the warranty period, or that any of them were individually exempt from liability.

With the defect established as occurring within the warranty period, and with no evidence to the contrary from any of the four parties, the commission held all of them jointly and severally liable.

What the commission ordered

The Kannur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by President Ravi Susha and members Molykutty Mathew and Sajeesh K.P., allowed the complaint in part.

All four opposite parties were directed, jointly and severally, to either repair the Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra free of cost within one month from the date of the order, or refund Rs 1 lakh, the full purchase price, to the complainant.

In addition, they were ordered to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs 7,000 towards litigation costs, within 30 days of receiving the order.

If they fail to comply, the Rs 1 lakh refund and Rs 20,000 compensation will attract interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the order until realisation. The commission also noted that once the order is complied with, the opposite parties are free to take the phone back from the complainant.

Check the case judgement here: