Paid Rs 81,237Delivered 11 Jul 2026Without a working laptop 3+ monthsRefunded by any company Rs 0
A documented consumer complaint · Jul–Oct 2026
Paid in full. Defective on delivery. Three months of being told no.
A marketplace, a manufacturer, a bank and a regulator each looked at this complaint. Each closed it. The laptop was finally repaired in October, more than three months after it was paid for. No company refunded anything. Everything on this site comes from invoices, a service record, emails, and entries the companies made on Government of India portals. No motives are alleged. This is what was said, and when.
3
minutes between the return request and its rejection
12
Samsung staff wrote in five weeks. None fixed it.
5
days from “refund approved” to “beyond policy”
3
fraud templates sent by the bank for a defect dispute
3+
months without a working laptop, after paying in full
0
rupees refunded
In their own words
Three statements, each placed beside a later statement by the same organisation.
Samsung, NCH portal, 19 Aug 2026
“Refund cheque approved, requested submit the device along with bank ID.”
5days later
Samsung, same portal, 24 Aug 2026
“Explained T&C of refund/replacement, customer demand beyond policy. Hence case closed.”
Flipkart, NCH portal, 22 Jul 2026
“We will revert on it.”
5days later
Flipkart, same portal, 27 Jul 2026
“Brand is ready to provide repair service kindly coordinate with the brand.” Closed.
ICICI Bank, to the customer, 1, 3 and 5 Oct 2026
A reply about OTP, CVV and a cybercrime complaint, then: the bank has “no further clarifications”.
11days later
ICICI Bank, to the RBI Ombudsman, 16 Oct 2026
The merchant had declined on 19 August, and the bank had raised pre arbitration. The customer was never told.
The dispute was always about a defective product. The payment itself was never disputed.
The product and the defect
Product
Samsung Galaxy Book3 Pro
Model
NP940XFG-KC5IN
Bought on
Flipkart, 6 Jul 2026
Seller
Tech-Connect Retail
Product price
Rs 79,366
Fees and freight
Rs 1,871
The Rs 1,871 covered freight, platform fees, and a Rs 306 “Protect Promise Fee including Flipkart Trust Shield” sold with the laptop.
The laptop arrived on 11 July. It was defective on delivery and would not boot into Windows. Samsung’s own authorised service centre diagnosed it three days later, on 14 July, and recorded the defect under full warranty as:
“LAPTOP / POWER NOT ON / ALWAYS”
No repair was carried out then. The customer asked for a refund or replacement, as the law allows for a product defective on delivery. Samsung approved a refund in writing, then withdrew it.
In October, after more than three months, the laptop was taken to a Samsung store and repaired there.
The laptop works today. That is not the point of this site. The point is what it took: full payment on 6 July, a defect Samsung itself recorded on 14 July, and more than three months of written promises, reversals and closed files before the customer had a working machine. Every day of that wait was borne by the customer.
Read the full record
Every claim on this site links back to a document.
Including what each one did right. A fair record has to.
Flipkart
Took the full Rs 81,237 and issued two of the three invoices.
Rejected the return three minutes after it was requested. Then rejected two more return and replacement requests.
Deactivated the Trust Shield plan “as per your request”. The customer never made that request.
Marked the return request “resolved” three times in two minutes, then pointed to the brand.
Said “we will revert” on a government portal, then closed the grievance five days later.
Told the bank the product was delivered. Delivery was never in dispute.
Its stated policy for this item was replacement through the brand’s service centre, not a direct return.
Samsung
Diagnosed the defect three days after delivery.
Approved a refund in writing and on a government portal.
Agreed in writing to collect the laptop, then withdrew it.
Closed the case as “beyond policy” five days after approving it.
Repaired the laptop in October, more than three months after delivery.
It did approve a refund, conditional on the laptop being deposited at a service centre.
ICICI Bank
First said it could not raise a dispute at all.
Did not tell the customer when the merchant declined on 19 August.
Answered a defect dispute three times with a fraud template.
Gave the regulator a dispute date that falls before the purchase.
It did raise the chargeback and pre arbitration, gave a temporary credit, and kept its written promise: no interest or fees were charged.
RBI Ombudsman
Forwarded the bank’s documents for comment.
Closed the case the day after the comments were sent.
Found no deficiency in service, with no appeal available.
Repeated the bank’s impossible 29 June date in its order.
Its proceedings are summary by design. A merchant decline after pre arbitration was treated as a completed process.
If this happens to you
Assume the return window is shorter than you think. The return here was rejected within minutes. Raise it in writing on day one.
A service acknowledgement is not a DOA certificate. If the marketplace needs a brand certificate to replace the item, ask the service centre for that exact document, by name, on the first visit.
Put everything in email. Every commitment made on a phone call here was later denied or reversed. Only the written ones held.
Ask your bank which reason code it used, on the day you raise the dispute. And ask to be told in writing if the merchant declines. Here, the customer learned of a decline two months after it happened.
A chargeback is not a refund guarantee. If the merchant can show delivery, the bank may treat the matter as closed, even for a defective product.
The person holding the broken device bears the cost of waiting. Here that was over three months. Decide early how long you can go without it, and whether a repair now is worth more to you than a refund later.