Jump to content

User:Louis/Sony India remote warranty denial and legal notice to BRAVIA owner

From Consumer Rights Wiki
For the affected owner's own account of this dispute, see User:Laxmimerit/Sony India remote warranty denial and legal notice to BRAVIA owner.


A ₹1,50,031 Sony BRAVIA television failed in the 22nd month of a three-year warranty.[1] Its owner says Sony India refused the claim: that a technician photographed the screen with a phone, that a team which never came to the house ruled the panel damaged from outside, and that he was billed ₹29,130 for the repair.[1] Sony India has not commented on any of it.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

When he published the paperwork, a six-page notice dated September 1, 2026, Sony told him to delete every post and video and apologise within seven days, and warned of civil and criminal action with damages of at least ₹5 crore, about US$530,000.[10][11][12][13][14] That is roughly 333 times what the television cost.[1][13]

The notice is printed on the letterhead of the New Delhi law firm Rise Legal and states it is served Under the instructions and on behalf of M/s. Sony India Private Limited.[11][15] Neither Sony India nor Rise Legal has publicly confirmed sending it.[2][16]

Panel failure in month 22

[edit | edit source]
The owner's website, sonybravia.com, presenting his own account of the dispute, including his statement that Sony would not honour the warranty on his BRAVIA K-55XR70 after the panel failed in the 22nd month of a three-year term.[1]

The set was a 55-inch Mini LED BRAVIA K-55XR70, bought on September 20, 2024 for ₹1,50,031, about US$1,600.[1][14] Sony India's own Special Warranty Offer article lists the K-55XR70 among the models carrying three years of comprehensive warranty on purchases between September 6 and November 10, 2024, which covers the purchase date; the standard term for this model is one year.[17][18] The owner says he added a two-year extended warranty from the retailer Croma on top.[1] It was wall mounted from day one, he says, never moved and never knocked.[1]

He says thin vertical lines appeared at the top left on July 2, 2026, and grew into a dark band while the picture kept playing.[1] No dent, no crack, no scratch, he says.[1]

Warranty denied from phone photographs

[edit | edit source]

He says a technician came on July 3, 2026, photographed the screen with a phone, and sent the images over WhatsApp to a Sony team that never came to the house, and that the team called it external damage.[1] The rejection line the owner quotes from Sony's email reads the Display panel has been damage due to external cause.[1]

Sony's rejection wording as the owner publishes it, with his note that the photograph attached to the email showed the failing screen rather than any damage.[1]

He says the decision and a ₹29,130 bill arrived by email on July 14, 2026.[1] He asked in writing how the finding was reached; by his account the case was later closed on the ground that he had not confirmed, which he disputes.[1] He also says the technician offered, on the July 3 visit, to get the repair covered for ₹10,000 in cash. That is his own recollection of a conversation rather than a document, and no independent finding has established it.[1][4]

He recorded a later inspection on August 1, 2026. On camera, he says, the attending technician admits he did not physically examine the panel, cannot state an engineering qualification, and does not know how the damage happened.[1]

[edit | edit source]

The notice runs to six pages, is headed BY SPEED POST / E-MAIL, and carries the Rise Legal web address on every page above a footer giving a Defence Colony address in New Delhi.[11][10] It ends with a handwritten signature over For Rise Legal, the printed name Aquib Ali and the word Partner.[13] Rise Legal's own site lists him as a partner enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi.[19] The document gives no enrolment number, no seal, and no email address, though its header says it was sent by email.[11][20][21][22][12][13] It carries no matter reference of the firm's own, though it does cite the client's service record: a job card number, dated July 3, 2026, with the reported symptom recorded as Panel Damage.[11][20][21][13]

Its subject line runs:

LEGAL NOTICE CALLING UPON YOU TO IMMEDIATELY CEASE AND DESIST FROM PUBLISHING AND CIRCULATING FALSE, MISLEADING AND DEFAMATORY CONTENT AGAINST SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND FROM UNAUTHORISED USE OF THE "SONY BRAVIA" TRADEMARK[11]

Subject line of the notice, which pairs the defamation demand with a claim over unauthorised use of the SONY BRAVIA trademark.[11]

Paragraph 9 says only that the client owns the registered SONY and BRAVIA marks and reserves its right to take appropriate legal action independently for seeking injunction.[22] Nothing across the six pages pleads a section of the Trade Marks Act or mentions copyright.[10]

Paragraphs 1 and 2 are a resume of the client, an industry leader selling in India since 1994, and state that Customer satisfaction remains at the core of Our Client's business philosophy. Both come before any fact about this television.[11][20]

  • Page 1, carrying the date, the letterhead and the subject line.[11]
    Page 1, carrying the date, the letterhead and the subject line.[11]
  • Page 3, carrying the account of the inspection.[21]
    Page 3, carrying the account of the inspection.[21]
  • Page 6, carrying the deadline, the damages figure and the signature block.[13]
    Page 6, carrying the deadline, the damages figure and the signature block.[13]

Wrong domain named four times

[edit | edit source]

The website the notice names, four times across three pages, is SonyBravia.online, not the sonybravia.com the outlets covered.[20][22][12][4] sonybravia.online is a live registration made on July 13, 2026, six days after sonybravia.com, on the same two nameservers.[23][24] Neither of the owner's two videos shows or says that address, and the September 1 video puts sonybravia.com on screen instead.[25][26]

Deletion demand and seven-day deadline

[edit | edit source]

Paragraph 12 demands he delete the YouTube videos, the X posts, the website, and anything identical or substantially similar on any other platform, and stop publishing such statements.[12][13]

Paragraph 12 of the notice, naming the YouTube videos and the publications on his X account and on the website SonyBravia.online as the material to be deleted.[12]

Paragraph 13 sets the deadline and the number:

In addition to the aforesaid, you are also called upon to tender an unconditional apology to Our Client within 7 days from the date of the receipt of the present Legal Notice, failing which, we have definite instruction to take appropriate legal actions both civil and criminal, including but not limited to monetary damages against you at least to the tone of Rs. 5 crores.[13]

Paragraph 13 of the notice, setting the seven-day apology deadline and the figure of Rs. 5 crores.[13]

Statements the notice reproduces

[edit | edit source]

Paragraph 8 reproduces Never buy a Sony BRAVIA and Sony sold us a warranty. Then refused it from the owner's X account; paragraph 9 reproduces SorryBravia, No dent, no crack, no money back and 3 years promised, 22 months delivered from the website, and calls the site's contents ex facie defamatory.[22][12] Paragraph 7 adds that the client was shocked to learn the recipient had harassed the engineer instead of co-operating, and that the recording of the service engineer was made without his consent.[21][22] Paragraph 10 assigns a motive, saying the recipient acted with the sole intention to exert undue pressure on Our Client so that the said TV be replaced free of cost.[12]

Criminal defamation under section 356(2)

[edit | edit source]

The notice cites one statute, a criminal one: paragraph 11 states that the recipient has prima facie committed an offence under section 356(2) of the BNS, 2023, and has exposed himself to civil wrongs.[10][12]

Paragraph 11 of the notice, which rests its criminal claim on section 356(2) of the BNS, 2023.[12]

Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, printed under the sub-heading Of defamation, is the criminal defamation provision, and sub-section (2) is its punishment clause:

Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, or with community service.[27]

The section carries ten exceptions, the first for an imputation that is true and made for the public good, the third for a good-faith opinion about conduct touching a public question.[27] The notice raises neither, and asserts throughout that the statements are false.[10] No civil cause of action is pleaded by name anywhere in the six pages, and no forum, court or filing is identified.[10]

Disputed inspection

[edit | edit source]

Paragraph 5 names the technician as Mr. Umesh Pandey, and describes him, as per the available records with our Client, as a diploma holder in electronics and PC maintenance from Kokane's Kohinoor Institute, Mumbai, serving as service engineer at Mangalmurti Enterprises. It says he visited your premises and inspected the said television in your presence.[21] Kokane's Kohinoor Institute is a real technical institute in Dadar West, Mumbai.[28] Mangalmurti Enterprises appears, spelled exactly that way, on a Sony India service network list of 314 centres, under Thane.[29] The technician gives his name and his employer on camera in the owner's own video.[25] The institute appears nowhere in the owner's own account of the dispute.[1][10]

Paragraph 5 of the notice, which names Mr. Umesh Pandey of Mangalmurti Enterprises as the service engineer and records the finding of damage due to an external cause.[21]

It then gives the finding:

Upon inspection and subsequent deliberations, it was found that the display panel of the said television had suffered damage due to an external cause[21]

Paragraphs 6 and 7 give the notice's own account of how it came to be written: that the owner replied on August 3, 2026 attaching a YouTube link and a link to his X account, and that the client acted after opening that video. It dates the client's earlier communications to July 7, July 14 and July 29, 2026.[21] The owner's own timeline records an email on August 3, 2026, which he says two Sony addresses bounced.[1] Neither of the two Sony videos on his channel was published before September 1, 2026.[25][26]

The owner has said since July 2026 that nobody examined the panel and that the call was made remotely by a team that did not attend.[1][10] Across six pages the notice names no test, gives no measurement, attaches no report, and reproduces no photograph of the damage it says was found.[10]

Nobody has confirmed Sony sent it

[edit | edit source]

The document reached the public through one channel: the recipient published it, on a domain he registered on July 7, 2026 in the course of this dispute.[10][24]

Rise Legal is a real New Delhi firm, launched in November 2022 by four founding partners, Aquib Ali among them.[30] The address and telephone number in the notice's footer are the ones the firm publishes on its own contact block, and the registered office it gives for its client is the one Sony India Private Limited publishes for itself.[11][15][31] None of that authenticates the letter, because anyone can look up the firm, the partner, the address and the statute in minutes.

Times Now reported on September 3, 2026 that it had contacted Sony India for its response and would update its story; no such update has appeared, and it is the only outlet that says it asked.[2] Rise Legal has published nothing about the matter on its own news page.[16] No named outlet has reproduced the six pages or vouched for them, and most of the reports do not name the firm at all.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] On that record the notice is evidence of what the notice says, and is not evidence that Sony India sent it.

Press coverage

[edit | edit source]

Eight outlets in two languages ran the story from September 3, 2026, and every one worked from the owner's published record: Times Now, News18, Digit, LatestLY, Sportskeeda and Gizbot on September 3, and Aaj Tak and Navbharat Times in Hindi on September 4. The six that ran on September 3 published before the pages themselves went online.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][32] Times Now said that the claims made by the customer have not been independently verified.[2] LatestLY added a caution:

A legal notice is not a court judgment and does not establish that either party is legally right or wrong.[5]

The reports could not agree on who he was: LatestLY used his given name, Sportskeeda called him by his Reddit handle, and Gizbot pinned the account on a journalist who had posted about it.[5][6][7] Sportskeeda also told its readers the dispute had produced a demand to hand over a website domain, which the six pages do not contain.[6][10]

Times Now's report on the dispute, which attributes the account to the customer's own claims that his Sony BRAVIA K-55XR70 developed vertical green lines about 22 months into a three-year warranty.[2]

His response and the September 8 deadline

[edit | edit source]

The seven days run from receipt, which the owner dates to September 1, 2026, putting the deadline at September 8, 2026.[13][10] He has said he will remove nothing and apologise for nothing.[10] He published the recording of the August 1 inspection on September 1, 2026, the day the notice is dated, posted a video answering the notice on September 2, 2026, and put the six pages online on September 4, 2026.[25][26][10][32][1]

His consumer complaint is filed and pending, by his account, and he has framed it as the venue where both sides are tested on affidavit, inviting Sony to have the panel examined by a laboratory there.[10] On the domain, he posted a disclaimer that SONY and BRAVIA belong to their proprietors and are used only to identify the product. It adds that Sorry Bravia is a parody wordmark and that the site is not affiliated with Sony. The site now sells one item, a case file offered on its support page.[5][1]

See also

[edit | edit source]

References

[edit | edit source]
  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 "The case, in full". sonybravia.com. Archived from the original on 2026-09-06. Retrieved 2026-09-06. A personal consumer-awareness website published by the television's owner.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Upadhyay, Bharat (2026-09-03). "Sony Bravia TV Worth Rs 1.5 Lakh Develops 'Green Lines' Within Warranty; Customer Gets Rs 5 Crore Notice". Times Now. Retrieved 2026-09-04.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 "Sony Bravia TV Worth Rs 1.5 Lakh Get 'Green Lines' Under Warranty; Company Responds With Rs 5 Crore Legal Notice After 'Website Protest'". News18. 2026-09-03. Archived from the original on 2026-09-03. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Singh, Ashish (2026-09-03). "SorryBravia: Sony Bravia customer launches website after his Rs 1.5 lakh TV develops green lines, claims Rs 5 crore notice". Digit. Retrieved 2026-09-04.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Meera (2026-09-03). "Laxmi Kant Tiwari Buys SonyBravia.com Over TV Warranty Dispute, Then Receives INR 5 Crore Legal Notice". LatestLY. Retrieved 2026-09-04.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Majumdar, Ripan (2026-09-03). "How a broken Sony Bravia TV led to an 8-figure lawsuit". Sportskeeda. Retrieved 2026-09-04.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Martin, Carlsen (2026-09-03). "Bought an Expensive Sony Bravia TV? This Warranty Dispute Raises Major After-Sales Concerns". Gizbot. Retrieved 2026-09-04.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 "पहले खरीदा 1.5 लाख का Sony Bravia TV और फिर मिला 5 करोड़ का लीगल नोटिस, हैरान कर देगा ये केस". Aaj Tak (in हिन्दी). 2026-09-04. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Chaurasia, Shishir (2026-09-04). "'एक आम आदमी अकेले बिलियन डॉलर की कंपनी से भिड़ गया है, अभी तक पीछे नहीं हटा है'". Navbharat Times (in हिन्दी). Retrieved 2026-09-05.
  10. ↑ 10.00 10.01 10.02 10.03 10.04 10.05 10.06 10.07 10.08 10.09 10.10 10.11 10.12 10.13 10.14 "Sony's legal notice, and where we stand". sonybravia.com. 2026-09-02. Archived from the original on 2026-09-03. Retrieved 2026-09-04. Published by the television's owner. The live page carries all six pages of the notice as page images; the archived snapshot predates their publication.
  11. ↑ 11.00 11.01 11.02 11.03 11.04 11.05 11.06 11.07 11.08 11.09 "Legal notice of September 1, 2026, page 1 of 6". sonybravia.com. 2026-09-01. Archived from the original on 2026-09-04. Retrieved 2026-09-04. Page image published by the notice's recipient at https://sonybravia.com/legal-notice/. This page is also uploaded as File:Sony-india-bravia-warranty-legal-notice-page-1.png.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 "Legal notice of September 1, 2026, page 5 of 6". sonybravia.com. 2026-09-01. Archived from the original on 2026-09-04. Retrieved 2026-09-04. Page image published by the notice's recipient at https://sonybravia.com/legal-notice/.
  13. ↑ 13.00 13.01 13.02 13.03 13.04 13.05 13.06 13.07 13.08 13.09 "Legal notice of September 1, 2026, page 6 of 6". sonybravia.com. 2026-09-01. Archived from the original on 2026-09-04. Retrieved 2026-09-04. Page image published by the notice's recipient at https://sonybravia.com/legal-notice/. This page is also uploaded as File:Sony-india-bravia-warranty-legal-notice-page-6.png.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 "Reference exchange rates, US dollar base, September 4, 2026". Frankfurter, from European Central Bank reference rates. 2026-09-04. Retrieved 2026-09-04. Returns 94.49 Indian rupees to the US dollar for September 4, 2026.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 "Rise Legal". riselegal.in. Retrieved 2026-09-04. The firm's own website states it is a "full-service law firm" "based out of New Delhi", and prints the Defence Colony address and telephone number that appear in the notice's footer.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 "News". riselegal.in. Retrieved 2026-09-04. The firm's own news page carries no item about Sony India, the BRAVIA dispute, or a legal notice.
  17. ↑ "Special Warranty Offer for all India except Kerala (article 00346354)". Sony India. Archived from the original on 2025-10-06. Retrieved 2026-09-05. Lists, for purchases between 6 Sep 2024 and 10 Nov 2024, "43 inches and above - 3 Years Comprehensive", with K-55XR70 among the models named.
  18. ↑ "Warranty Information (article 00206932)". Sony India. Archived from the original on 2024-02-27. Retrieved 2026-09-05. Gives the standard television term as "All other TV Models: 1 year".
  19. ↑ "Aquib Ali". riselegal.in. Retrieved 2026-09-04. The firm's own profile page gives the designation Partner and enrolment with the Bar Council of Delhi.
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 "Legal notice of September 1, 2026, page 2 of 6". sonybravia.com. 2026-09-01. Archived from the original on 2026-09-04. Retrieved 2026-09-04. Page image published by the notice's recipient at https://sonybravia.com/legal-notice/.
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 21.6 21.7 "Legal notice of September 1, 2026, page 3 of 6". sonybravia.com. 2026-09-01. Archived from the original on 2026-09-04. Retrieved 2026-09-04. Page image published by the notice's recipient at https://sonybravia.com/legal-notice/. This page is also uploaded as File:Sony-india-bravia-warranty-legal-notice-page-3.png.
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 "Legal notice of September 1, 2026, page 4 of 6". sonybravia.com. 2026-09-01. Archived from the original on 2026-09-04. Retrieved 2026-09-04. Page image published by the notice's recipient at https://sonybravia.com/legal-notice/.
  23. ↑ "RDAP record for sonybravia.online". Radix registry RDAP service. Retrieved 2026-09-04. Registration event dated July 13, 2026; nameservers byte.dns-parking.com and pixel.dns-parking.com.
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 "RDAP record for sonybravia.com". Verisign registry RDAP service. Retrieved 2026-09-04. Registration event dated July 7, 2026; nameservers BYTE.DNS-PARKING.COM and PIXEL.DNS-PARKING.COM.
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 25.3 "Sony (Sorry) Bravia: Warranty Denied From a WhatsApp Photo. Service Visit Caught on Camera". YouTube. KGP Talkie. 2026-09-01. Retrieved 2026-09-05. The owner's recording of the August 1, 2026 inspection, published at 07:16 UTC on September 1, 2026. The attending technician gives his name and his employer in the opening seconds, in the audio and in the burned-in English subtitles.
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 "Sony (Sorry) Bravia: A ₹5 Crore Legal Notice for Asking for Proof". YouTube. KGP Talkie. 2026-09-02. Retrieved 2026-09-04.
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 "The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (No. 45 of 2023)" (PDF). Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. 2023-12-25. Retrieved 2026-09-04. Section 356, "Of defamation", at pages 99 to 101 of the Act as published in the Gazette of India.
  28. ↑ "Kokane's Kohinoor Institute". kokaneskohinoor.com. Retrieved 2026-09-06. The institute's own site gives its Mumbai head office as "Kohinoor Bhavan-B, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar(W), Mumbai 400 028". Served over HTTP; https does not resolve.
  29. ↑ "Sony India service network list" (PDF). distributed as a product attachment on Amazon's media server. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2026-09-06. Retrieved 2026-09-06. Two pages, 314 centres. Under West Region, Maharashtra, Thane: "Mangalmurti Enterprises, Shop No. 1, 2 & 3, Arihant Towers, Dr Ramesh Pradhan Road, Off Ram Maruti Road, Behind Sai Kripa Hotel, NR Talao Pali, Thane (W)-400602". The document is not served from a Sony domain.
  30. ↑ "Former Phoenix Legal Partner Ritika Ganju announces launch of new firm - Rise Legal". Bar and Bench. 2022-11-10. Retrieved 2026-09-04. Names Aquib Ali among the four founding partners and states that he and Meera Kaura head the firm's dispute resolution practice.
  31. ↑ "Warranty & Service Charges Information". Sony India. Retrieved 2026-09-04. Prints "Regd. Office:Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-18, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi - 110 044". The site returns HTTP 403 to non-browser requests; retrieved with browser automation.
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 "Legal notice page image, archived by the Internet Archive". sonybravia.com. 2026-09-04. Retrieved 2026-09-05. The archived capture returns the origin server's own header, Last-Modified: Friday, September 4, 2026 at 09:11:14 UTC, which dates the upload of the page images.
Retrieved from "https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/Sony_India_remote_warranty_denial_and_legal_notice_to_BRAVIA_owner&oldid=66106"