"Cosmic Byte Refusing Refund for Hades Headset - Two Manufacturing Defects in 130 Days - Legal Advice Needed"

[nayan]

Content:
- Product: Cosmic Byte Hades Gaming Headset (₹4,524)
- Purchase Date: April 12, 2025
- Issue 1 (July): Mic jack failure - replaced under warranty
- Issue 2 (August): Power button jam - refund refused
- Company initially agreed to refund (Aug 25), then reversed (Sep 5)
- Currently: Product with them since Sep 13, still refusing refund

Timeline of Issues
Purchase: April 2025 – Cost ₹4,524
First Defect (July 2025):

• Mic jack stopped working due to poor soldering on PCB.
• Product was replaced under warranty.

Second Defect (August 2025):

• Main power button jammed, causing the headset to keep turning on/off.
• Only 130 days after purchase – clearly a quality issue.

My Request
I asked Cosmic Byte to process a full refund instead of another replacement, citing the Consumer Protection Act (2019) since the product had failed twice within a short span.
Company’s Responses

• At first, support sent me standard instructions for reverse pickup and warned me about “warranty void if damaged.”
• I pushed back, insisting on a refund and not another replacement.
• On Aug 25, 2025, they agreed in writing to refund once the product was returned.
• I shipped the product back, even including a replacement USB cable because the original one broke early on.

The Flip-Flop

• On Sep 5, 2025, Cosmic Byte suddenly reversed their stance, saying refunds are not possible and only repair/replacement can be given.
• I sent multiple mails, including a settlement proposal (refund + compensation) to resolve it amicably.
• When that was ignored, I issued a final legal notice, citing Consumer Protection Act provisions and previous legal precedents.
• I demanded ₹8,524 (refund + harassment compensation), while warning that a consumer court claim could go much higher.

Outcome (So Far)

• After the legal notice, Cosmic Byte again promised a full refund once the product passed quality check.
• Reverse pickup was arranged, product received at their service center on Sep 13.
• As of Sep 20, they are saying the technical team will check if the product can be “repaired or replaced” before dispatch, even though they had committed to refund earlier.

Takeaway
The entire process has been exhausting: multiple emails, contradictory responses, and repeated delays.
Two major defects in 130 days shows poor quality control.
The company kept flip-flopping between refund and replacement, despite clear consumer rights.
Questions:
1. Are two separate defects in 130 days grounds for refund under CPA 2019?
2. Can company policies override consumer protection law?
3. Should I file consumer court complaint?

 

[iamthecosmos]

1. Yes, absolutely.
2. No
3. Yes — and you appear to have built a solid case.

 

[lawyersonia]

Based on the facts shared, the repeated defects and the company’s inconsistent communication are relevant factors in assessing a consumer complaint. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer may have remedies where goods suffer from defects or where there are deficiencies in service. However, two defects within 130 days do not automatically create an unconditional right to a refund in every case. The nature of the defects, warranty terms, repair/replacement history, and the evidence available would all matter.
The written confirmation from the company agreeing to a refund on August 25 could also be important evidence, particularly if the product was returned based on that representation. A later change in position should be documented carefully.
Keep copies of the invoice, warranty terms, emails, WhatsApp/chat communications, service records, replacement details, legal notice, courier proof and the company's responses. If the company does not resolve the matter, filing a complaint before the appropriate Consumer Commission can be considered. The complaint can seek an appropriate remedy based on the evidence, which may include refund, replacement, compensation or other relief where legally justified.
Before filing, it would be useful to organize the entire chronology and supporting documents so that the Commission can clearly see the defects, warranty actions and the company's changing position.