Your ₹2,00,000 Sony BRAVIA has been repaired rejected.
A Mini LED panel started dying on its own at 21 months into a 5-year warranty. Dead pixels, spreading lines, a growing dark patch, all on camera. No dent. No crack. No scratch. Sony's verdict: "physical damage." And their engineer's private offer, at our home: ₹10,000 cash, and it becomes "covered."
Every corner intact. Every pixel test failed.
What you see on screen is a blue test pattern from an RGB panel test we ran ourselves. Against it, the fault is unmistakable: a dark patch and dead-pixel lines in the top-left. Now look at the frame, the glass, and all four corners. Not one mark, anywhere.
An impact happens in a second. This took days, on camera.
Days, not milliseconds. That is the fingerprint of a panel dying from the inside, not the aftermath of a one-time blow. Not one frame shows a dent, a crack, or a scratch. Sony still wrote "external physical damage."
₹10,000 in cash could make the "physical damage" disappear.
Sony's authorised engineer inspected the TV at the owner's home. He found no dent, no crack, no scratch, because there are none. Then, before any verdict arrived, came the offer. Word for word, as the owner remembers it:
"Agar aap 10k do, to warranty me cover karwa dunga, turant. Nahi to humne photo upload kar di hai. Sony wale aapko batayenge ki warranty milegi ki nahi."
In plain English: "Pay ₹10,000 and I will get it covered under warranty, immediately. Otherwise, we have already uploaded the photo. Sony will tell you whether you get warranty or not."
At first we thought it was an official charge. It is not. A real panel replacement is quoted near ₹30,000, on paper, with a bill. This was ₹10,000, in cash, with no receipt. Under the table.
If ₹10,000 can turn "not covered" into "covered", the verdict was negotiable, not technical.
We refused to pay. The report came back: "physical damage." On a TV without a single scratch.
"Physical damage" that disappears for ₹10,000 was never damage. It was a price tag. This has been reported to Sony India in writing, with a demand for a proper enquiry into the centre.
A ₹2,00,000 television, denied on sight.
Bought September 2024. Worked flawlessly for about 21 months. Then a few thin vertical lines appeared, top-left. Photographed the same day. While the owner was on the phone with Sony's helpline, the lines multiplied in real time, within 30 minutes. That call is on Sony's own recording.
Over the next days the fault spread: more lines, a growing dark patch. We ran an RGB panel test; on the blue test screen the dead zone is unmistakable. Every stage: on camera.
Taken to Sony's authorised centre, fully under warranty. At the home inspection, their engineer asked for ₹10,000 in cash to make it "covered." We refused. The official verdict then arrived: "physical damage", not covered. Repair quote: ₹29,130, on us.
When we asked to be shown the damage, the only thing produced was a photo of the failing screen. That is where this file begins.
From first line to final bill.
Everything, documented.
Each photo, annotated with what it shows and what it does not prove.
Onset: thin vertical lines
SHOWS ▸ the TV rendering a full picture, faint lines top-left.
NOT ▸ any crack, dent, or point of impact.
Day 2: the fault spreads
SHOWS ▸ more lines and a dark band, picture still on.
NOT ▸ anything a one-time hit can do. Impacts do not grow overnight.
The photo Sony calls "proof"
SHOWS ▸ a pale test screen with the serial label taped on. The exact frame cited as evidence.
NOT ▸ a scratch, dent or crack. Only the symptom.
The RGB panel test, up close
SHOWS ▸ our blue test pattern on screen; against it, the dead zone and clean vertical lines. The glass they run under: intact.
NOT ▸ a crack they radiate from. Impact damage spiders out from a point. This does not.
A photo of a failing screen proves the screen is failing.
It does not prove who or what caused it. That single piece of evidence is missing from this entire file, and it is the only piece that matters.
"…the Display panel has been damage due to external cause… Photograph attached for your reference."
Verbatim, from the rejection email. The full email is withheld because it carries the owner's personal details. The "photograph attached" was a photo of the failing screen, not of any damage.
They sell the glow. We got the lines.
Left: Sony's own campaign photos, loaded straight from sony.co.in/bravia, taglines verbatim. Right: the same brand, at a real customer's home, month 21 of 60. This is what can happen, and what the warranty did about it: nothing.
AD PHOTOS & TAGLINES LOADED DIRECTLY FROM SONY.CO.IN/BRAVIA (JULY 2026), © SONY INDIA, SHOWN FOR CRITICISM & REVIEW · DAMAGED TV: THE OWNER'S OWN BRAVIA, UNEDITED
Where is the physical damage?
The verdict says "physical damage." Physical damage leaves physical evidence. So point to it. We looked everywhere. So can you:
A broken engine is not proof that someone crashed the car.
A failing display is not proof that the customer broke it. Symptom is not cause. That gap is the whole case.
And remember: the same people who "found" physical damage also offered to make it covered for ₹10,000 cash. Real damage does not have a discount rate.
The centre that put a price on a warranty: ₹10,000.
One authorised centre produced the verdict that voided a ₹2,00,000 warranty. Here is its scorecard on this one case, from the owner's own records and firsthand account.
Customer's name, given in writing, filed wrong with Sony.
Customer's email, given in writing, filed wrong with Sony. The communication chain meant to help the customer: quietly broken.
₹10,000 asked in cash, at the owner's home, to make the TV "covered under warranty, turant." No receipt on offer. Under the table.
No test named. No report shown. Panel never opened. Diagnosis method: one look and one photo.
Cash refused. Report filed: "physical damage." On a TV with zero marks. The bill: ₹29,130.
So let's check the record. A centre that could not copy a customer's name or email off a piece of paper sat in front of a dead ₹2,00,000 Mini LED, never opened the panel, ran no test anyone can name, found no dent, no crack, no scratch, asked for ₹10,000 under the table, got refused, and then wrote down "damaged due to external cause."
If they cannot be trusted to copy a name, why should anyone trust their word on a broken TV? And if the verdict was honest, what exactly was the ₹10,000 for?
The contact details above are the centre's own publicly listed business details, reproduced for the record. The ₹10,000 demand is the owner's direct firsthand account of what was said at their home, reported to Sony India in writing with a demand for an enquiry. This page is fair-comment criticism of a documented service experience.
If a centre can't copy two words off a paper, why believe it can rule out every cause of a panel failure in one glance?
Name: wrong. Email: wrong. Verdict on a ₹2,00,000 TV: somehow beyond question. Does that make sense to anyone?
If the diagnosis was honest, what was the ₹10,000 for? And if it wasn't, why is the diagnosis still standing, Sony?
A quick translation guide.
Terms as used by the warranty process, defined honestly. Satire, sourced from the actual case.
The questions. And what came back.
Other owners. Same story.
Publicly posted reports from other owners and forums, presented as reported by their sources.
"Vertical lines of death"
Long owner-forum threads on BRAVIA sets developing vertical lines, widely described as a panel or T-Con failure needing panel replacement.
What Hi-Fi? forum →Lines at 15 months, "warranty exhausted"
A user reported vertical lines after about 15 months and was reportedly told coverage was exhausted, with a diagnostic charge just to look.
AVForums →Sony India ordered to refund
Consumer-complaint records include cases where Sony India was directed to refund with interest and compensate for "mental agony and harassment."
Consumer court records →Sony's own panel warranty extension
Sony has itself acknowledged BRAVIA LCD panel failures broadly enough to publish a formal warranty-extension notice. Panels failing on their own is documented, not freak.
Sony India support notice →This Diwali they will sell you the glow. Read this file before you fall for the glow.
A long warranty is only worth what the company will actually honour. Keep the invoice, the box, and every photo from day one. You may need them for the fight.
FESTIVE TERMS & CONDITIONS, HONEST EDITION: WARRANTY VALID UNTIL A PANEL ACTUALLY FAILS · "PHYSICAL DAMAGE" APPLIES TO FAILURES WITH NO PHYSICAL DAMAGE · PROOF MEANS A PHOTO OF YOUR OWN TV · COVERAGE AVAILABLE FOR ₹10,000, CASH, ASK YOUR ENGINEER · RESULTS NOT GUARANTEED, DENIALS ARE
If you buy anyway, buy like a detective.
Everything that made this case strong was documentation. Do the same, from day one.
We are not asking for a favour. We are asking for a photograph.
You concluded that the panel of a ₹2,00,000 BRAVIA suffered physical damage from an external cause, 21 months into a 5-year warranty. If that is true, the damage exists in the physical world and can be shown. So show it: the dent, the crack, the scratch, the impact point, or the test that found what the eye cannot.
And answer one more question. Your authorised engineer stood in our home and offered to make this TV "covered under warranty" for ₹10,000 in cash. We reported it to you in writing. What have you done about it? A company that will not investigate that has decided the answer is fine.
Until then, a photo of a failing screen remains a photo of a failing screen. Symptom is not cause. Produce the evidence, act on the report, and this file closes the same day.
THE OWNER OF ONE VERY QUIET, VERY INTACT BRAVIA · CORRECTIONS AND SONY'S RESPONSE ARE WELCOME AND WILL BE PUBLISHED
If there really was physical damage, why couldn't anyone show it? And why was it for sale at ₹10,000?
Until one photograph appears, the ₹2 lakh question stands.