Man denied TV damage claim from insurer, wins Rs 2.85 lakh consumer payout

5 min readNew DelhiJul 16, 2026 03:45 PM IST

The complainant bought a television worth Rs 1.62 lakh in 2019. Besides the manufacturing warranty of three years, he paid Rs 18,998 towards extended warranty till 2024. (AI-generated image)

A consumer court in Andhra Pradesh has directed LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance and others to pay Rs 2.86 lakh to a consumer for rejecting his television damage claim on the basis of a forensic report that was prepared from a video of the device, instead of conducting a physical inspection.

A bench of president Gudla Tanuja and member Krishna Murthy of the Visakhapatnam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rejected the forensic report produced by Bajaj Insurance Company, observing that it had not provided any legal or technical basis to support an expert opinion that was based on examining a video of the television damage instead of conducting a physical inspection.

“…OPs (opposite parties) failed to justify their denial of the claim made by the Complainant by producing acceptable evidence. Consequently, the acts of the Opposite parties in denial of the claim amount to deficiency in service,” the July 6 order noted. The complaint was filed against the retailer Sonovision Enterprises, manufacturer LG Electronics, extended warranty provider CPP Assistance, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd, and the office of the insurance ombudsman.

According to the complainant, he purchased a television worth Rs 1.62 lakh on October 8, 2019. The product covered a manufacturing warranty of three years and the complainant additionally paid Rs 18,998 towards extended warranty for the period from October 8, 2022 to October 7, 2024.

Vertical line on TV, insurer rejects claim

On September 19, 2024, the complainant noted that a thick, vertical line appeared on the television screen from top to bottom. He reported it to the customer service, following which a technician visited the same day and informed him after inspection that the TV was physically damaged.

On September 20, 2024, the complainant lodged a claim under the policy issued by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance. On September 23, 2024, a technical team inspected the device and denied the claim on the ground that the policy covered breakdown resulting from manufacturing defects and not due to physical damage.

The companies involved demanded Rs 30,000 to replace the old part, though the television was damaged while the extended warranty was in force. The complainant issued a legal notice to them, but they neither complied with its terms nor sent any reply. Stating that this falls under deficiency of service, the complainant moved the consumer court.

Story continues below this ad

While admitting the sale of the television and issuance of the policy, the companies denied the man’s claim, stating that the vertical line on the screen was caused by physical damage. They argued that such damage was not covered under the warranty or the insurance policy issued by Bajaj and sought dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

Bajaj relied on an expert report to argue that the vertical line appearing on the television was caused by physical damage, whereas the policy was issued covering the risk arising due to manufacturing defects.

‘Extended warranty in force’

The commission noted that the physical damage occurred during the extended warranty period and the policy was in force. It held that the companies involved could not deny liability merely by rejecting the claim. It also rejected the expert report, observing that the expert had virtually examined the television damage and not physically.

The commission, allowing the complaint, said the complainant was entitled to either replacement or refund of the sum incurred, besides the amount paid towards extended warranty. He was also entitled to compensation for such being denied the claim a long period, that too owing to unjustified and inconsistent reports which caused him trauma and agony.

Story continues below this ad

The commission directed the companies to refund Rs 1.62 lakh and Rs 18,998 with 7 per cent interest per annum from the date of damage till the date of realisation, and to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation with Rs 5,000 litigation cost.

Consumer takeaway

The ruling highlights that a company cannot deny liability by producing expert reports without any legal or technical support for the opinion, and it cannot reject the claim for a damaged product that is under extended warranty.

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

Somya Panwar works with the Legal Desk at The Indian Express, where she covers the various High Courts across the country and the Supreme Court of India. Her writing is driven by a deep interest in how law influences society, particularly in areas of gender, feminism, and women’s rights.

She is especially drawn to stories that examine questions of equality, autonomy, and social justice through the lens of the courts. Her work aims to make complex legal developments accessible, contextual, and relevant to everyday readers, with a focus on explaining what court decisions mean beyond legal jargon and how they shape public life.

Alongside reporting, she manages the social media presence for Indian Express Legal, where she designs and curates posts using her understanding of digital trends, audience behaviour, and visual communication. Combining legal insight with strategic content design, she works on building engagement and expanding the desk’s digital reach.

Somya holds a B.A. LL.B and a Master’s degree in Journalism. Before moving fully into media, she gained experience in litigation and briefly worked in corporate, giving her reporting a strong foundation. ... Read More

Tags:

consumer court

television

Visakhapatnam