Smart TV bought for Rs 20,000 stops working in 6 months, man wins Rs 57,000 compensation

4 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Jun 16, 2026 10:13 AM IST

The complainant had purchased a protection coverage at Rs 1,499 and the manufacturer is also said to have provided a one-year warranty for the television. (AI-generated image)

Noting that a smart television purchased for the enjoyment of a family led to inconvenience, mental agony and monetary loss after it was found to be non-functioning, the District Consumer Commission in Telangana’s Nalgonda has directed the manufacturer and service providers of the Thomson QLED TV to refund them Rs 20,449 for the defective television and pay Rs 1,499 for protection coverage.

A bench comprising president Mamidi Christopher and members S Sandhya Rani and V Venkateshwarlu also awarded Rs 25,000 compensation and Rs 10,000 litigation costs for deficiency in service.

“The complainant purchased the television for domestic use and enjoyment of the family. Due to the non-functioning of the TV within a short period from the date of purchase and the failure of the opposite parties to rectify the same, even after detecting the defect, and despite warranty and protection coverage, the complainant was undoubtedly subjected to inconvenience, mental agony, and financial loss,” the commission said on May 25.

‘Failed to repair or replace TV’

The specific case of the complainant is that within about six months from the date of purchase, the television stopped functioning, and despite repeated approaches made by him to the opposite parties (television company), the defect was neither rectified nor the defective part replaced, the commission noted.

Despite admitting the defect and assuring replacement of the defective part, the opposite parties failed to repair the television or replace the defective “main board” within a reasonable time.

The conduct of the opposite parties in prolonging the matter through repeated assurances without resolving the defect clearly amounts to a deficiency in service.

This commission holds that the complainant successfully established that the television suffered from a defect during the warranty/protection period and that the opposite parties committed a deficiency in service by failing to rectify the defect or replace the defective part despite repeated requests and admissions made through electronic correspondence.

Purchase made in January 2025

The complainant had purchased a Thomson QLED Ultra HD Smart Google TV with Dolby Vision and Atmos through the online platform Flipkart after being satisfied with the specifications and representations made regarding the product. The price of the TV was Rs 20,449.

It was further stated that the television was installed in January 2025 by the personnel of Jeevan Consumer Services Pvt Ltd, who collected Rs 1,000 towards installation charges.

The complainant also purchased complete appliance protection coverage by paying Rs 1,499. According to the complainant, the manufacturer had also provided a one-year warranty for the television.

‘TV stopped working properly’

The complainant alleged before the consumer commission that the television worked properly only for about six months and stopped functioning in July 2025. On noticing the defect, he lodged complaints through the toll-free number of Flipkart and also addressed emails to the company seeking rectification of the defect.

Story continues below this ad

He claimed that at first there was no proper response and, subsequently, a technician was deputed by the opposite parties, who inspected the television and informed him that its main board was defective.

The complainant contended that though the defect arose during the warranty period and despite the comprehensive appliance protection coverage, the opposite parties neither repaired nor replaced the defective main board and refused to replace the television with a new one.

It was alleged that the opposite parties were merely informed that replacement was not possible and that repair would be attempted if the product was repairable, but no effective repair was carried out.

The court noted that despite service of notice, the opposite parties remained absent and were accordingly set ex parte.

© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

Jagriti Rai works with The Indian Express, where she writes from the vital intersection of law, gender, and society. Working on a dedicated legal desk, she focuses on translating complex legal frameworks into relatable narratives, exploring how the judiciary and legislative shifts empower and shape the consciousness of citizens in their daily lives.

Expertise

Socio-Legal Specialization: Jagriti brings a critical, human-centric perspective to modern social debates. Her work focuses on how legal developments impact gender rights, marginalized communities, and individual liberties.

Diverse Editorial Background: With over 4 years of experience in digital and mainstream media, she has developed a versatile reporting style. Her previous tenures at high-traffic platforms like The Lallantop and Dainik Bhaskar provided her with deep insights into the information needs of a diverse Indian audience.

Academic Foundations:

Post-Graduate in Journalism from the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), India’s premier media training institute.

Master of Arts in Ancient History from Banaras Hindu University (BHU), providing her with the historical and cultural context necessary to analyze long-standing social structures and legal evolutions. ... Read More

Tags:

consumer court

Smart TV

telangana