Consumer Court Orders Thomson to Replace or Refund TV That Failed in 36 Days
An Andhra Pradesh district consumer commission has directed Thomson and its distributor Super Plastronics Private Limited to replace a defective smart TV or refund its full price, after the device malfunctioned within 36 days of purchase. The order underscores the legal responsibility of companies to address warranty claims promptly.
The West Godavari District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by President D. Kodanda Rama Murthy and members S. Suresh Kumar and K. S. N. Lakshmi, passed the order on June 1, 2026, on a complaint filed by Prasanna Lakshmi Gottupalli. She purchased a Thomson FA Series 106 cm (42-inch) Full HD Smart Android TV on September 27, 2024, through Flipkart for Rs 14,999.
According to the complaint, the television developed defects in its functioning soon after purchase. Despite multiple emails to the company's customer support between November 2 and November 21, 2024, the issues persisted and no effective solution was provided. The complainant also sent a legal notice on December 9, 2024, which was received by the distributor but remained unaddressed.
The commission noted that the opposite parties—Thomson and Super Plastronics—did not contest the proceedings and were set ex-parte. After examining documentary evidence including purchase records, email correspondence, and postal tracking, the commission concluded that the allegations stood unrebutted. “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 order stated.
The commission held that the failure to repair or replace the TV during the warranty period amounted to a deficiency in service. It directed the companies to either replace the defective television with a new unit of the same model or, alternatively, refund Rs 14,999 with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing the complaint until realisation.
Consumer rights experts say this ruling reinforces the importance of warranty obligations under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The order is binding on the companies and serves as a reminder that unresolved complaints can lead to legal action with financial consequences.
