Warranty denied on Kingston SSD — Bait & Switch on same day as NCH complaint — Case strong enough for consumer court?
Product: Kingston Fury Renegade 2TB NVMe SSD (SFYRD2000G) | 5-Year Global Warranty | ~8 months old | Gift from relative in Australia
The defect: Drive has been failing since the beginning of use — recurring DPC_WATCHDOG_VIOLATION BSODs caused by the Phison controller. SMART data (CrystalDiskInfo, March 25, 2026) shows:
6,417 NVMe controller error log entries
93,417 anomalous power cycles (391/day — physically impossible through normal use, proves internal controller resets)
100 unsafe shutdowns (= 100 BSODs)
What RPtech (authorized Kingston service centre) did:
April 7 — Falsely claimed they never received the drive. I sent ePOD with GPS. They instantly "found" it and immediately rejected warranty citing "dent IC damage scratches"
Zero diagnostic testing conducted — no SMART review, no I/O test, nothing
The cosmetic scratches are on the outer solder mask — physically impossible for them to cause Phison controller failures
April 8 — Filed NCH complaint,
April 10 — The Bait & Switch:
12:37 PM — RPtech system email: "Your RMA has been processed. The replacement unit will be couriered to you"
12:40 PM — RPtech issues Outward Challan No. 2100_RRMA58902141A2026
12:57 PM — RPtech WhatsApp: "RMA Couriered — The replacement unit will be couriered to you within 3–5 working days"
2:39 PM — RPtech email: "Due to physical damage we cannot consider warranty, we are returning your SSD" — same defective drive dispatched back via BlueDart
Kingston HQ response (same day):
First says: "we'll respond once NCH contacts us"
Then says: "no RMA was approved"
Then when I point out the WhatsApp saying "replacement unit," they say: "TAT and RMA are industry standard terms, our communications don't mean replacement was approved"
My argument: The WhatsApp says "replacement unit will be couriered" in plain English — not acronyms. The Outward Challan is a manually triggered logistics document, not a template. Kingston (principal) is responsible for RPtech's (agent) representations.
Legal basis I'm relying on:
Section 2(10) — Defect in Goods
Section 2(11) — Deficiency in Service
Section 2(47) — Unfair Trade Practice (Bait & Switch)
Section 84 — Product Manufacturer Liability
Section 85 — Product Service Provider Liability
Section 39(1)(d) — Compensation for mental agony
Plan: Approach DLSA for free legal aid to file on e-Daakhil with advocate's help. I am willing to engage a private advocate if needed, as I intend to claim litigation costs as part of the relief.
Technical Note for the Lawyers: The 'damage' cited is on the outer solder mask (cosmetic). The SMART logs prove the failure is an internal controller watchdog reset (Phison controller bug) which predates any cosmetic wear. Under the 'Doctrine of Nexus,' the company has failed to show how a surface scuff causes an internal silicon-level firmware reset.
Questions:
Is the Bait & Switch angle legally strong given the WhatsApp + Challan evidence?
Does buying the product as a gift (gifted by relative in Australia) affect my consumer standing under Section 2(7)?
Any procedural mistakes I should avoid before filing?
Is my case strong enough?
All evidence is documented and timestamped. Happy to share screenshots if needed.
I have condensed this significantly using AI because i have been documenting everything and the post would become too large if i didn't use AI.
TL;DR: Kingston/RPtech promised a replacement for a failing SSD in writing (Email, WhatsApp, and Outward Challan) at 12:40 PM, then reversed it and sent the old defective drive back at 2:39 PM citing "scratches." Filing on e-Daakhil for Bait & Switch/Unfair Trade Practice. Seeking advice on the strength of the "Challan" as evidence.