Samsung Held Liable For Failure To Resolve Complainant's Issue With Redemption Of Coupon Code For Discounted Buds Pro On Its App

Brief Facts:

Midhun Panka (“Complainant”) purchased a premium Samsung Smart Phone (Galaxy S21 Ultra) from an authorized dealer in Kozhikode. Subsequently, the Complainant discovered an offer from Samsung through its Official App after purchase of the phone, which allowed him to purchase the Samsung Galaxy Buds Pro for Rs. 990/-, which had an approximate value of Rs. 16,000/- at that time. However, technical errors prevented the Complainant from claiming the offer despite multiple attempts and troubleshooting steps provided by customer care.

The Complainant made several efforts to resolve the issue through Samsung's customer service, including filing complaints on the Consumer Help Line Online Forum, but didn't receive any resolution. Later, Samsung provided him a coupon code to redeem the original offer. However, the Complainant faced further hurdles as OTPs required for redemption were not delivered to the designated mobile number, despite successful delivery to other numbers. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kozhikode (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Samsung. The Complainant argued that Samsung intentionally blacklisted his mobile number to prevent him from claiming the coupon code before its expiration.

In response, Samsung denied all allegations and claims made by the Complainant, asserting that the promotional offer for the earbuds was not a guaranteed provision but required specific steps to be completed within a limited timeframe by the customer. Samsung contended that any technical issues encountered during the process were not their responsibility and that the promotional offer falls outside the scope of warranty terms and conditions.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that Samsung didn't provide any evidence to support its claim that the Complainant failed to fulfill the steps in time to claim the coupon. Further, it noted that Samsung did not provide any resolution to the Complainant's grievances despite repeated attempts by him and there was an irresponsible conduct on its part. Therefore, it held Samsung liable of deficiency in services.

It noted that the Complainant did not seek replacement of the handset or refund of the purchase price but instead requested compensation for the mental agony and hardship endured due to Samsung's negligence and unfair trade practices. Consequently, the District Commission directed Samsung to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant and Rs. 3,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.