Order placed on Flipkart. Rs 81,237 paid by credit card in one transaction.
Order to repair, July to October 2026. Filter by organisation.
Order placed on Flipkart. Rs 81,237 paid by credit card in one transaction.
Delivered. Defective on delivery: it will not boot into Windows.
Samsung’s authorised service centre diagnoses the fault and records it under full warranty as “LAPTOP / POWER NOT ON / ALWAYS”. No repair.
Flipkart emails that the Flipkart Trust Shield plan on the laptop has been deactivated “as per your request”, with a refund of Rs 0.0. The customer made no such request.
The customer messages Flipkart Support on X. Flipkart asks for a job sheet. The Samsung sheet is sent at 5:43 AM the next morning.
“Our team will stay in touch via call/email.”
Return requested on Flipkart.
Return rejected. Three minutes later. Flipkart’s own record shows its return policy window ran until 18 July.
Four more replies on X. None gives a date.
“You have our word that we’ll connect with you to share an update.”
No update follows. The customer also posts publicly on X.
Second return request on Flipkart. Formal written complaint to Flipkart’s Grievance Officer and to Samsung India.
Complaints filed with the National Consumer Helpline, Government of India, against Flipkart and Samsung.
Flipkart, on the portal: “We will revert on it.”
Flipkart support promises an update “within the next 48 hours”. None follows.
Chargeback requested with the card issuer, with evidence.
ICICI Bank: “We are unable to raise a dispute on our end.”
The customer replies that the merchant has already been contacted, and has refused.
Third return request on Flipkart. The 48 hour promise has lapsed. Between 10:08 and 10:10 PM, Flipkart’s Help Centre posts “As per our conversation your issue is resolved” three times, then refers the customer to the brand’s service centre. All three requests end “Return Rejected”.
Samsung asks for the invoice. Sent the same day.
The bank promises an update by 28 July, then asks for evidence including proof that the merchant refused the return. Sent the same day. It then promises an update by 31 July.
On a phone call, Samsung offers a store coupon or a repair. Both are declined in writing. A coupon spendable only at Samsung’s own stores is not a refund.
Five holding replies from five representatives. Each says the case is with an escalation team: “senior”, “Highest-Level”, “Management”. The customer asks for a date twice. No date is ever given.
Flipkart closes the government grievance. No collection. No refund.
“Brand is ready to provide repair service kindly coordinate with the brand.”
Further Flipkart representatives repeat the same line on 28 and 29 July, under new incident numbers.
The bank registers the dispute, and says it is expected to be processed within 28 weeks.
The bank applies a temporary credit of Rs 81,237, and confirms in writing that “whatever will be the bank decision on the request no financial charges will be levied.”
According to the bank’s later account, the chargeback is raised with the merchant.
Samsung writes that the device “has undergone through physical and technical inspection by our expert team”, and confirms a refund of Rs 79,366 by cheque. It asks when the customer will visit the service centre.
On the NCH portal: “Refund cheque approved, requested submit the device along with bank ID.”
The same day, the merchant declines the chargeback. The bank raises pre arbitration. The customer is not told, and is not asked for evidence. Samsung’s refund approval of that same day is never used.
By email: “We will coordinate with service centre to pick the device from your place and proceed with further refund process.”
Samsung asks for bank details. Sent the same day. Later that day, a different representative asks for the laptop to be deposited instead, because “the device must be connected to our system”.
Samsung withdraws home collection. Deposit is now “mandatory”, and Samsung “will be unable to assist you further”. The case is closed.
On the same portal: “Explained T&C of refund/replacement, customer demand beyond policy. Hence case closed.”
After ten days of silence, Samsung acknowledges a complaint about a “Samsung Handset” and asks for six photos of the device. Sent the same day.
The customer offers in writing to deposit the laptop, on one condition: that the receipt records the approved refund amount. Samsung’s Service Head, CEO’s office and grievance desk each repeat that the case is closed. On 30 August the Service Head writes that “the team will look into this and will contact you”. No one does.
SMS: the merchant has declined. The temporary credit is reversed the same day. The customer pays it on 1 October.
The customer asks for the reason code used, the merchant’s documents, and pre arbitration.
Three identical replies about OTP, CVV and filing a cybercrime complaint, a template for unauthorised transactions. The error is pointed out in writing on 1 October. The template is sent twice more, and declared final.
Complaint filed with the RBI Ombudsman against the bank’s handling of the dispute.
ICICI Bank: “A reply addressing your complaint will be sent to you by our team.”
The bank’s reply to the Ombudsman says the dispute was raised on 29 June 2026, a week before the laptop was bought. It also discloses, for the first time, the 19 August decline and the pre arbitration.
The merchant’s documents are shared for the first time. Flipkart’s position: delivered, return rejected, so no chargeback. The payment gateway letter is a template naming the customer “Flipkart”, email abc@flipkart.com, phone 9999999999. Neither addresses the defect.
ICICI Bank: “Our official from the department concerned will revert to you.”
The Ombudsman closes the case that evening.
The Ombudsman closes the complaint: “There is no deficiency in service.” Non-appealable. The order repeats the 29 June date.
The laptop is taken to a Samsung store and repaired, more than three months after delivery.