I am submitting this complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 regarding denial of warranty service for my Vu 65VIBE DV television purchased on 31 July 2025. On 17 December 2025, while the unit was wall mounted and idle in standby mode, the screen suddenly developed vertical lines and what appears to be an internal crack. This occurred without any external interference. My household has no children or pets, and the television’s wall mounted position makes accidental pressure or impact impossible.
On 22 December 2025, an authorized Vu technician inspected the unit and confirmed in his report that there was no external physical damage to the panel or outer glass. Despite this clear finding, the company’s Service Head (Bangalore Branch) issued a denial on 30 December 2025, classifying the defect as “physical damage.”
Further, internal company correspondence between 31 December 2025 and 2 January 2026 (emails from Vu executives including Mr. Gururaj) explicitly acknowledged that “no visible physical damage was observed” and even recommended treating the case as a goodwill support matter to maintain customer trust. This directly contradicted the denial letter.
It is important to highlight the contradictory stance of Mr. Gururaj. On 31 December 2025, he wrote to the Head Office team confirming that the technician’s report showed no physical damage and requested reconsideration of the “physical damage” remark. On 2 January 2026, he again wrote internally that the ASP technician had confirmed no visible damage and asked for goodwill support. Later, in his communication with me, Mr. Gururaj even admitted that panel damage may not be visibly noticeable from outside and that internal stress can cause line issues without cracks or marks — which supports my contention that the defect is internal. However, he then backtracked, stating he had to defer to the technical team’s report and had no authority to override it. Ultimately, he aligned with the head office’s claim of “physical damage, ” despite the technician’s report and his own earlier acknowledgments.
This sequence demonstrates that the denial was not based on consistent technical findings but on arbitrary internal decisions. The technician’s inspection and Mr. Gururaj’s initial admissions confirm the absence of external damage, while the later reversal shows an attempt to justify denial after the fact. Such contradictory handling further supports my contention that the defect is a manufacturing fault and that denial of warranty constitutes an unfair trade practice.
From a technical perspective, internal cracks and vertical lines can occur due to thermal stress (expansion/contraction of materials even when idle) or manufacturing defects such as weak bonding in the liquid crystal/OLED layers. The attached image evidence shows the crack near the panel’s edge — a location consistent with internal stress, not external trauma. Importantly, the outer glass shows no cracks, dents, or scratches, further proving that the failure originated inside the panel.
Warranty terms clearly cover “defects in material or workmanship.” Denying warranty despite internal acknowledgment of no external damage amounts to an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. I have waited more than 15 days and submitted multiple written requests, but no satisfactory resolution has been provided.
Relief sought:
• Free replacement of the defective panel under warranty
• Compensation of ₹50, 000 for mental distress and inconvenience
• Litigation costs of ₹10, 000
• Directions to the Respondent to prevent arbitrary denial of warranty claims in future
Summary of Contradictions -
1. Technician’s Report (22 Dec 2025)
- Authorized Vu technician inspected the unit.
- Confirmed no external physical damage to the panel or outer glass.
- Report submitted to company records.
2. Company Denial (30 Dec 2025)
- Service Head (Bangalore Branch) classified the defect as “physical damage.”
- Warranty service denied despite technician’s findings.
3. Internal Emails (31 Dec 2025 – 2 Jan 2026)
- Gururaj (Vu Executive) stated: “No visible physical damage observed.”
- Requested HO to reconsider the “physical damage” remark.
- Recommended treating the case as a goodwill case to maintain customer trust.
- Contradicts the denial issued by Service Head.
4. Contradiction Highlight
- Technician’s report and internal emails confirm no external damage.
- Company’s denial letter claims “physical damage” without justification.
- This inconsistency demonstrates arbitrary and unfair denial of warranty.
5. Consumer Rights Impact
- Warranty terms cover “defects in material or workmanship.”
- Internal crack/vertical lines are consistent with a manufacturing defect, not misuse.
- Denial despite internal acknowledgment constitutes unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
My Argument to VU - Technical Arguments
- Thermal stress: Panels can fail due to heat expansion/contraction even when idle.
- Manufacturing defect: Weak bonding in the liquid crystal or OLED layers can cause spontaneous line distortion.
- No external marks: As the outer glass/plastic shows no cracks, dents or nor even minute scratches which I mention just for argument’s sake, it is obvious that the failure is internal and not consistent with impact.
Image Analysis:
The attached image shows a localized internal crack near the panel's edge, supporting the possibility of a manufacturing defect. Key points:
- Location: Near the edge, not on the surface where external impact usually occurs.
- Size & shape: A small, linear crack, suggesting internal origin.
- Cause: Likely due to manufacturing stress or material defect, not physical trauma.
Rebuttal to Company's Claim:
Mr. Prashanth (Vu Vice President, Support Services) unjustifiably claims an "impact spot" caused the issue, contradicting the authorized technician's report (22 Dec 2025) which explicitly confirmed no visible physical damage or external impact. This baseless assertion ignores factual evidence and seems a post-hoc rationalization to deny warranty. The technician's findings, coupled with internal emails recommending goodwill support, clearly indicate the defect is a manufacturing issue, not external damage.
All supporting documents — invoice, warranty card, technician’s email report, photographs, internal emails, correspondence — are enclosed for reference.
I respectfully request that this matter be taken up urgently, as the denial of warranty in this case is unjustified, contradictory to the company’s own records, and amounts to an unfair trade practice.
Was this information helpful?
Post your Comment