February 12, 2026 : The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi has held Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to provide a complimentary bezel that was advertised as part of a promotional offer with a 65-inch television.
The complaint was filed by Prasouk Jain under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Commission, comprising President Poonam Chaudhry and Member Shekhar Chandra, passed the order on 11 February 2026 in CC/162/2024.
Advertisement Promised Free Bezel and Smartphone
According to the record, the complainant placed an order on 26 September 2022 through Samsung’s official website after viewing an advertisement offering a 65-inch television at a discounted price along with a complimentary bezel and a complimentary Samsung Galaxy A03 smartphone.
The actual price of the television was ₹2,22,900, but it was offered at a discount of ₹95,000. An invoice for ₹1,27,990 was generated and paid.
The complainant argued that the bezel was not a minor accessory but an essential component. The television was marketed as a slim, frame-like product designed to resemble a photo frame and blend with home décor. Without the bezel, its core aesthetic appeal and unique selling point stood compromised.
Bezel Not Delivered
While the television and the complimentary smartphone were delivered on 6 October 2022, the bezel was not supplied. Upon inquiry, Samsung informed the complainant via email that the bezel had not been added to the cart at the time of purchase and therefore could not be delivered.
The complainant contested this position, stating that if a product is advertised as complimentary, it cannot be expected that a consumer would add it separately to the cart. He also pointed out that on the website, such promotional bezels were shown to be added automatically when an eligible television was selected.
After repeated emails and a legal notice dated 29 November 2022, the complainant received no satisfactory resolution. Ultimately, he purchased the bezel independently from an authorised store on 19 December 2022 for ₹7,500.
Samsung’s Defence
In its written statement, Samsung argued that under the terms and conditions of the “Bundle Offer,” the complimentary bezel had to be added separately to the cart, following which its value would automatically be set to zero. Since the complainant did not add it, the benefit could not be extended.
Commission’s Findings
The Commission rejected Samsung’s technical objection. It observed that the television was marketed specifically as a frame-style product and that the bezel was integral to achieving the advertised effect.
It noted that depriving the complainant of the bundle offer on a highly technical ground amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The Commission found that if a product is advertised as complimentary, a consumer cannot reasonably be expected to add it separately to the cart over and above the main product.
Holding that the complainant was compelled to purchase the bezel from the open market due to Samsung’s failure to honour its commitment, the Commission directed the company to: Pay ₹7,500 towards the cost of the bezel with interest at 7 percent per annum from 19 December 2022 till realization, Pay ₹50,000 as compensation for mental agony and hardship and Pay ₹50,000 towards litigation expenses
The amounts are to be paid within four weeks, failing which they will carry interest at 9 percent per annum. With these directions, the complaint was allowed and disposed of.
Case Title: Prasouk Jain v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CC/162/2024
Coram: Poonam Chaudhry (President) and Shekhar Chandra (Member)
Date of Order: 11.02.2026
