Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 Owner Alleges Poor Repair, 39-Day Delay Despite Care+ Coverage

Another customer has raised serious questions about Samsung India’s after-sales service after alleging that his ₹1.63 lakh Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 was kept at an authorised service centre in Junagadh, Gujarat, for 39 days, only to be returned with visible defects despite an expensive device-protection plan.

Rehan Tumbi, the customer, claims that the handling of his Samsung Care+ repair claim, delays in processing and alleged defects at the time of collection left him dissatisfied with both the authorised service centre and Samsung India’s customer-care response.

The customer says he purchased the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 for ₹1,63,000 and paid ₹17,999 for the Samsung Care+ policy. After his repair claim was approved, he paid an additional ₹10,999 as a deductible on July 23, 2026. He handed over the phone to Jignesh Technologies, an authorised Samsung service centre in Junagadh, on July 25.

Repair status raised questions

According to Tumbi, the service centre initially failed to record receipt of his device in the system. He says the entry appeared only on July 31, raising questions about the delay in documenting the handset’s receipt.

The customer further alleges that, although the service records subsequently showed the device as “Device Repaired”, the actual handover process did not reflect the same level of readiness.

On August 19, he was reportedly informed that the physical repair had been completed but a system or server issue was preventing the handset from being handed over.

Tumbi says he visited the service centre again on September 2 after receiving a repair-related communication. He alleges that the phone was not fully assembled when he arrived and that the front display and rear panel were fitted at the centre over approximately five to ten minutes.

The customer says he possesses an audio recording of the conversation and its transcript, which he is willing to share for independent verification.

Display separation, dust near camera alleged

Tumbi claims that after collecting the device, he noticed a visible gap or separation around the display area and dust or foreign particles near the camera.

He says he documented the condition through dated photographs and subsequently raised the matter with Samsung India.

The customer alleges that his handset remained with the service centre for 39 days, with significant delays in the initial job-sheet process and the eventual handover. He argues that the experience was unacceptable, particularly after paying a substantial amount for device protection and the claim deductible.

The central issue, he maintains, is not merely the length of time taken for the repair but whether the device was properly repaired, assembled and inspected before being declared ready for collection.

Customer-care response fails to satisfy complainant

The customer says he escalated the complaint to Samsung India and submitted supporting records, photographs and videos. He alleges that the subsequent customer-care handling failed to adequately address his concerns and disputes aspects of the company’s response concerning the display separation and the assembly and handover process.

Tumbi also approached the National Consumer Helpline. According to him, the grievance was eventually closed with a response referring to dust near the camera, warranty terms and the company’s position on the resolution sought.

However, the customer maintains that closure of the grievance did not resolve the broader dispute, particularly his separate concern about the display.

He says he has preserved payment receipts, service-status communications, email correspondence, audio recordings, a transcript, dated photographs and the National Consumer Helpline record. He has now pursued the matter through the consumer dispute redressal process.

Questions for Samsung India

The complaint raises questions about the accountability of authorised service centres, the accuracy of repair-status updates and the effectiveness of customer-care escalation mechanisms.

For a customer paying ₹17,999 for a device-protection policy and another ₹10,999 as a claim deductible, expectations of timely service, proper assembly and adequate quality checks are understandable.

The allegations also underline the importance of ensuring that a device marked as repaired is actually ready for handover and that reported defects receive a clear, issue-wise response.

IndianPSU will seek Samsung India’s response and the authorised service centre’s explanation regarding the alleged delays, the device’s reported repair status, the condition at handover and the subsequent complaint. The allegations remain the customer’s account and require verification against the available records and the company’s response.

Samsung India and Jignesh Technologies will be given an opportunity to present their version of events before any conclusions are drawn.

This report is based on the complaint shared by Rehan Tumbi.