Smart TV shows ‘defects’ in 36 days of purchase, consumer court says replace or refund

An Andhra Pradesh district consumer commission has ordered a television company and its distributor to replace a Rs 14,999 Thomson smart TV which started to malfunction in just 36-days after it was bought in September 2024, or refund the amount, holding that the company was responsible for a deficiency in service.

West Godavari District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission president D Kodanda Rama Murthy and members S Suresh Kumar and K S N Lakshmi were hearing a complaint filed by one Prasanna Lakshmi Gottupalli against Thomson Consumer Care Department and Super Plastronics Private Limited.

She claimed that she purchased the  smart TV through Flipkart, which started malfunctioning and repeated complaints about defects during the warranty period went unresolved.

“There is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties…The opposite parties are directed to replace the defective TV with a new TV of the same model…In the alternative, the opposite parties shall refund Rs 14,999 with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation,” the commission said on June 1.

Dispute

According to the complaint, Prasanna Lakshmi purchased a Thomson FA Series 106 cm (42-inch) Full HD Smart Android TV on September 27, 2024, for Rs 14,999 through Flipkart.

Soon after the purchase of the smart TV, she allegedly noticed defects in its functioning.

Despite approaching customer support multiple times, the problems in the smart TV allegedly persisted, and no effective solution was provided.

The complainant told the commission that the smart TV remained under warranty, yet the company failed to repair or replace the product.

She further alleged that repeated emails seeking assistance did not result in any meaningful response from the manufacturer or service provider of the smart TV.

Multiple complaints, no resolution

The consumer sent emails to the company on November 2, November 4, November 13, November 20 and November 21, 2024, seeking resolution of the issue.

When those efforts failed, she issued a legal notice on December 9, 2024.

According to the complaint, the notice sent to the first opposite party was returned unserved, while the second opposite party received the notice as reflected in postal tracking records.

Story continues below this ad

Claiming that the company’s conduct amounted to a deficiency in service and caused her inconvenience and mental agony, she approached the consumer commission for relief.

Companies did not contest case

The commission noted that the opposite parties were set ex-parte after failing to contest the proceedings.

The complainant submitted documentary evidence, including purchase records, email correspondence, legal notices and postal records to support her allegations.

After examining the material on record, the commission observed that there was no rebuttal to the complainant’s claims.

Story continues below this ad

“There is no rebuttal statement available on record so far, as the contentions of the complainant and the allegations are presumed to be correct,” the commission said.

Commission finds deficiency in service

The consumer forum noted that there was no dispute regarding the purchase transaction and that the complainant had consistently complained about defects in the smart TV.

The commission concluded that the evidence established the existence of a manufacturing defect and that the companies had failed to adequately address the consumer’s grievance despite the product being under warranty.

It therefore held that the opposite parties were liable either to replace the television with a new unit or to refund its cost.

Story continues below this ad

Relief granted

In its order dated June 1, 2026, the commission partly allowed the complaint and directed Thomson and Super Plastronics Private Limited to replace the defective smart TV with a new television.

Alternatively, the companies were ordered to refund Rs 14,999 to the complainant along with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until realisation.

The commission also awarded Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs and directed compliance with the order within four weeks of receipt of the judgment.

Consumer takeaway

The ruling serves as a reminder that warranty promises are enforceable and that companies can be held accountable when consumers are left without repairs, replacements or responses to repeated complaints.

Story continues below this ad

It also highlights the importance of preserving invoices, emails, legal notices and service records, which can prove crucial in establishing a case before consumer forums.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Andhra Pradesh helpline: 0866-2551431) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.