New Sansui LED TV stops working within 6 weeks, court directs to pay Rs 35,000 after 11 years

Small hole on TV screen

• On September 12, 2015, the complainant purchased a Sansui LED TV from Nandilath G Mart for an amount of Rs 18,990.
• On September 16, 2015, the TV was installed at the complainant’s residence by an employee of Nandilath G Mart, and it had a three-year warranty.
• From October 26, 2015 onwards, the said LED TV stopped working, following which the complainant registered a complaint with the servicing centre.
• The service engineer, after inspecting the TV, informed the complainant that the problem was in the main board and replaced the board, but the LED TV still did not work.
• The service engineer then found that there was a very small hole on the screen, due to which the TV was not working, and he was not able to repair the same.
• Thereafter, the complainant contacted the service station of Sansui on several days and also contacted Nandilath G Mart and requested to rectify the defect of the said LED TV, but the opposite parties did not take any steps to cure the defect of the TV.
• The complainant alleged that the said TV was not working due to its manufacturing defects.
• The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service; hence this complaint.

‘No warranty for broken panels’

Sansui averred that the complaint was not maintainable either in law or on facts, and it was stated that the TV was purchased by the complainant after properly inspecting the product from Nandilath G Mart.

It was submitted that the technician of Sansui inspected the product and found that the Printed Circuit Board (PCB) of the product was defective, ordered a new PCB and replaced the same, but he found that the panel of the product was damaged.

It was argued that the product sold by Sansui was of very high quality and there was no way that the panel could break on its own. The complainant was informed that the panel had to be replaced so that the TV could function properly, and that the warranty terms did not cover broken panels.

It was added that the panel could not be damaged on its own, except due to the negligent handling of the product by the complainant. It was contended that all the parts and components in the TV were of high quality.

The complaint was filed against Sansui by raising false and baseless allegations, and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the company, it was submitted.

Complainant’s ‘mishandling and negligence’

Nandilath G Mart submitted that the allegation that their salesman tried to manhandle the complainant was fabricated.

Sansui had deputed its service personnel who had informed Nandilath G Mart that the defect was a physical damage on account of the complainant’s mishandling and negligence and not on account of any manufacturing defects.

It was also revealed that there is a small hole on the screen that occurred due to physical damage, and the service personnel had advised the complainant to replace the damaged panel board of the TV, but the complainant refused to do the same.

Physical damage can occur only if the television set has been handled negligently by the complainant or any user of the complainant’s TV, they argued. It was contended that the physical damage was caused on account of the rough use of the TV set by the complainant.

Forum directs payment

• The significant question before the consumer forum was whether there was any deficiency in the service of the opposite parties, and whether the complainant was entitled to get relief.
• Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a product liability action may be brought by a complainant against a product manufacturer or a product service provider or a product seller, as the case may be, “for any harm caused to him on account of a defective product”, and accordingly, Nandilath G Mart was also liable along with Sansui, the commission added.
• It noted that Sansui had not produced any evidence to prove that any physical damage was caused to the TV, and it was evident that 60 per cent of the parts of the TV were not working.
• It was observed that due to the aforementioned damage, the opposite parties were liable to replace the TV.
• Since almost 11 years have elapsed from the date of purchase of the TV, it was not possible to replace it.
• In the view of the material on record, the complaint was allowed by the commission, directing the opposite parties to repay an amount of Rs 18,990 with 6 per cent interest from the date of purchase and pay Rs 10,000 as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs 6,000 as litigation cost.
• The commission said the payment should be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount, except cost, carries interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of order till realisation.

Consumer takeaway from the case

The ruling underscores that sellers and service providers can be held liable for defective products and failure to provide timely and effective remedies. It also highlights that prolonged litigation cannot deprive a consumer of their right to relief.

In this case, despite the passage of 11 years, the commission directed a full refund of the TV’s purchase price with interest and awarded additional compensation, reaffirming the consumer’s entitlement to redress the grievance of survival.

Aggrieved consumers may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Kerala helpline: 1800-425-1550) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.