A consumer court has directed LG Electronics to refund Rs 1,42,000, the full cost of an LED TV whose display stopped working within the warranty period, along with 6% interest from the date of institution of the complaint, within 30 days. The panel also ordered the company to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation towards litigation costs and mental agony.
On July 25 last year, Sector 107 resident Dinesh Chandra Goyal filed a complaint with the district consumer disputes redressal commission, seeking direction to LG Electronics. Goyal told the commission that he purchased an LED from the company on March 24, 2019. He had been informed that the TV would have a one-year warranty and the display a three-year warranty.
“The display on the product began experiencing problems after a few months, and one day, everything suddenly stopped working,” he said. Goyal also showed proof that a complaint regarding the issue was reported to the company’s customer service officer on Jan 30, 2020, following which service agents arrived and provided a makeshift solution.
The TV malfunctioned several times in that year, resulting in repeated complaints. However, no permanent solution was provided by the electronics company.
“By Sept 2020, it stopped working completely, and then the service agents stated that the display of the product needed replacement, which would cost approximately Rs 80,000. Since the product was well within the guarantee period, demanding money for repair constituted negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the electronics company,” Goyal argued.
Goyal finally shot off an email to the customer service representative, seeking a new TV or a refund of the amount paid, amounting to Rs 1,42,000.
Notices were eventually sent to LG Electronics for a response, but they remained unanswered. The company neither appeared in person nor filed a counter reply, following which the commission decided to hear the matter ex parte on Oct 3, 2025.
From the affidavit and documents submitted by the complainant, the commission was convinced that the action by the defendants to refuse a free-of-cost repair or replacement of the LED, which was still under warranty, constituted a deficiency in service on the part of the consumer durables manufacturer, and directed it to refund the amount with interest alongside paying compensation.
