Delhi Consumer Commission Holds Samsung India Liable For Not Delivering Complimentary Bezel Promised In Advertisement

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi, comprising Poo-nam Chaudhry (President) and Shekhar Chandra (Member), has held Samsung India Elec-tronics Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to pro-vide a complimentary bezel promised in its advertisement for a 65-inch television. The Commission observed that reliance on minor technical objections to deny a promo-tional promise amounts to deficiency in service. Brief Facts Prasouk Jain, the complainant, placed an order for a 65-inch Samsung television through the official website of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. on 26.09.2022. The product ad-vertisement promised several promotional benefits, including a complimentary bezel, a complimentary Samsung Galaxy A03 smartphone, cashback, and EMI options. An invoice for ₹1,27,990 (after discount) was issued and paid. The complainant stated that the complimentary bezel, which gives the television a picture-frame appearance was a key factor influencing his purchase. After completing the transaction, the complainant noticed that the order details did not re-flect the complimentary bezel. On 06.10.2022, the television and complimentary smartphone were delivered, but the bezel was not supplied. The opposite party later in-formed him that the bezel had not been delivered because it was not manually added to the cart at the time of purchase. After repeated follow-ups and a legal notice failed to yield results, the complainant pur-chased the bezel independently from an authorised store on 19.12.2022 for ₹7,500. He approached the District Consumer Commission seeking reimbursement of the cost of the bezel, compensation for mental agony, and litigation expenses. Arguments by the Opposite Party Samsung India contended that the complainant was not entitled to the promotional benefit because he failed to follow the required technical procedure while placing the order. It ar-gued that the complimentary bezel had to be manually added to the cart to avail the bundle offer. Observations & Decision The Commission observed that the television had been marketed as a frame-like product designed to resemble a photo frame, and that the bezel was an essential component form-ing part of the product's unique selling proposition. By failing to supply the bezel despite advertising it as complimentary, the opposite party defeated the very purpose for which the complainant had purchased the television. The Commission further noted that the opposite party's own submissions showed that the bezel was not delivered despite purchase under the promotional offer. Raising a highly technical objection to deny the benefit of the bundle offer, it held, amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Since the complainant was compelled to purchase the bezel from the open market, the op-posite party was held liable to reimburse its cost and compensate him for the resulting hardship. The Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to: • Pay ₹7,500 towards the cost of the bezel with interest at 7% per annum from 19.12.2022 till realisation • Pay ₹50,000 as compensation for mental agony and hardship • Pay ₹50,000 towards litigation costs If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, it will carry interest at 9% per an-num. Case Title: Prasouk Jain v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Case No.: CC/162/2024 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Delhi Consumer Commission Holds Samsung India Liable For Not Delivering Complimentary Bezel Promised In Advertisement

Muhammed Razik

Tags