Paid for extended warranty on TV but got no benefit? Man wins Rs 50,000 payout

A district consumer commission in Punjab has directed Croma to pay Rs 49,838 to a man who had bought a TV from its store and later on when it became deffective the company did not replace or repair the product.

A bench comprising Naveen Puri (president), Prem Singh Salaria (member)  and Harvimal Dogra (member) of the Hoshiarpur District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission was hearing to a complaint filed by a man who had purchased a TV from Croma along with an extended warranty of two years by paying extra but when the product became defective, the warranty was not honoured by the company.

“The conduct of the opposite parties (the company) shows that despite repeated requests and complaints made by the complainant, they merely extended assurances without taking any effective steps to resolve the issue. A ‘consumer’ who spends his hard-earned money with the legitimate expectation of enjoying a defect-free product cannot be left remediless,” the May 12 order read.

Extended warranty

On April 18, 2025, the man purchased a brand-new Croma-LED 50 inch TV from the Croma store and paid Rs 30,689 for the LED TV at the company’s store, and also made a payment of Rs 4,149 to the care service partner of Croma for 2 years of extended warranty.

After 1.4 years, the TV became defective, and lines started appearing on the screen. The man made several complaints, but despite repeated assurances from the company and several personal visits, calls, and even written communication, the issue did not get resolved. No effective repair or replacement took place; hence, the man had to file a consumer complaint.

‘Trade tactic’

The commission was of the view that there was a clear deficiency in service on the part of the company. It was observed by the commission that it was duly proved that the man had purchased a Croma LED TV and that he had paid an additional amount of Rs 4,149 towards an extended warranty for a period of two years.

The commission noted that since the company had accepted a one-time premium for giving extended warranty services, they were under a contractual and legal obligation to resolve the grievance of the ‘consumer’ during the warranty period, and their failure to do so was a deficiency in service as well as an unfair trade practice.

Story continues below this ad

It was further stated by the consumer that the conduct of the company showed that despite repeated requests and complaints made by the man, they only gave assurances to him without taking any effective steps to resolve the issue, and that a ‘consumer’ who spent his hard-earned money with the legitimate expectation of enjoying a defect-free product could not be left remediless.

When the man became exhausted after continuous follow-ups, the company offered a gift voucher of Rs 27,576 to him. According to the commission, the action was nothing but a “trade tactic” by the company to avoid its liability, rather than being a genuine effort to compensate the man.

Accordingly, the company was ordered to refund Rs 30,689 (price of the TV) along with Rs 4,149, which were charged towards extended warranty and interest was directed to be given at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the amount from the date of purchase of the TV till its realisation.

The commission also directed the company to pay Rs 15,000 as compensation for mental agony, harassment, and litigation expenses incurred by man.

Story continues below this ad

‘No deficiency in service’

Raju Verma, District Manager of Croma, represented the company and submitted that the company was a reputable one and was a part of the Tata Group with a well-established brand name in the electronics retail sector.

It was urged by the manager that the brand had a stellar record in its sector since it began in 2005, and the man wanted to injure the reputation of the brand. The manager also said the “false, frivolous and time-consuming” complaints were a waste of time and a gross abuse of the process of law.

The manager further stated that the company was attached as a party to the complaint only to harass and blackmail them. It was also claimed by the manager that the company was known for its services and that they always ensured and gave the best possible services to all their clients.

/It was also contended by the manager that at all material times, the company took adequate steps to ensure that there was no deficiency in service provided to the customer.

Significance

The ruling establishes the obligation of companies to actually comply with the product warranties promised to the consumers and that the concerns of the consumers must not be ignored, causing them unnecessary inconvenience.

Consumers must also pursue their complaints in before appropriate forums so that the companies and service providers at fault are held accountable for their actions. For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and union territories (Punjab helpline:0800-22577) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.