Delhi Consumer Commission Holds Samsung Liable for Failing to Deliver Complimentary Bezel Promised in Advertisement
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi, comprising Poonam Chaudhry (President) and Shekhar Chandra (Member), has held Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to provide a complimentary bezel that was advertised as part of a promotional offer on purchase of a 65-inch television.
The complaint was filed by Prasouk Jain under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant had placed an order on 26.09.2022 for a 65-inch Samsung television through the official website of the opposite party after viewing an advertisement offering a discounted price along with several promotional benefits, including a complimentary bezel and a complimentary Samsung Galaxy A03 smartphone. An invoice for ₹1,27,990 was generated and paid after discount.
The complainant stated that the complimentary bezel was a significant factor influencing his purchase, as the television was marketed as a frame-like product designed to resemble a photo frame, and the bezel formed an integral part of its aesthetic and functional appeal. Without the bezel, the unique selling proposition of the product stood defeated.
After completing the transaction, the complainant discovered that the order details did not reflect the complimentary bezel. Although the television and complimentary smartphone were delivered on 06.10.2022, the bezel was not supplied. Upon inquiry, the opposite party informed him that the bezel had not been delivered because it was not manually added to the cart at the time of purchase.
The complainant repeatedly communicated with the opposite party through emails and also issued a legal notice dated 29.11.2022. However, no satisfactory response was received. Ultimately, on 19.12.2022, the complainant purchased the bezel independently from an authorised store for ₹7,500. Aggrieved by the refusal to honour the advertised promise, he approached the Consumer Commission seeking reimbursement of the cost of the bezel, compensation for mental agony, and litigation expenses.
In its defence, Samsung India contended that the complainant failed to follow the required procedure under the “Bundle Offer,” which mandated that the complimentary bezel be added separately to the cart while placing the order. It argued that the benefit of the offer could not be extended since this technical requirement was not fulfilled.
After considering the rival submissions, the Commission observed that the television had been marketed as a slim, frame-like product designed to blend with home décor, and that the bezel was essential to achieving the advertised effect. The Commission found that the contention of the opposite party—that the bezel had to be added separately to the cart—was contrary to the representation made in the advertisement and did not justify denial of the promotional benefit.
The Commission noted that depriving the complainant of the benefit of the bundle offer by raising a highly technical objection amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It held that if a product is advertised as complimentary, the consumer cannot be expected to add it separately to the cart over and above the purchased product, especially when the promotional representation created a legitimate expectation that the item would be supplied along with the main product.
Observing that the complainant was compelled to purchase the bezel from the open market due to the failure of the opposite party to honour its commitment, the Commission directed Samsung India to reimburse the cost of the bezel amounting to ₹7,500 along with interest at 7% per annum from 19.12.2022 till realization. The Commission further awarded ₹50,000 as compensation for mental agony and hardship and ₹50,000 towards litigation expenses. It was also directed that if the awarded amounts were not paid within the stipulated period, they would carry interest at 9% per annum. With these directions, the complaint was allowed and disposed of.
Cause Title: Prasouk Jain v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CC/162/2024
Coram: Poonam Chaudhry (President) and Shekhar Chandra (Member)
