Failure To Repair Manufacturing Defects; North Delhi District Commission Directs HP To Pay Rs 60.4k

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi bench comprising of Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held HP liable of deficiency in services for not rectifying the manufacturing defects of the laptop sold to the Complainant. The bench directed it to pay Rs 60,490 to the Complainant.

Brief Facts:

Mr. Banamali Shukla (“Complainant”) purchased a Hewlett Packard (“HP”) laptop from Croma Retail Store (“Croma”) for Rs. 35,490/-. Within a month of the purchase, the laptop malfunctioned. The Complainant approached Croma for repairing of the laptop. Croma assured the Complainant that the laptop will be repaired. However, when Croma returned the laptop to the Complainant, the Complainant started facing issues. The Complainant made several attempts for the repair but the issues persisted. The Complainant sent the laptop to the manufacturer, HP, for inspection but received no satisfactory resolution to it. Thereafter, the Complainant once again approached Croma. Croma demanded Rs. 26,000/- stating that there was a faulty motherboard in the laptop. In the meantime, Croma offered the second-hand laptop. The Complainant made several communications with Croma and HP but didn't receive a satisfactory response from them. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi (“District Commission”).

In response, Croma argued that the Complainant failed to establish a case. It contended that its role was limited to sales. It denied responsibility for manufacturing defects and asserted that the Complainant was informed about the manufacturer's warranty. Therefore, Croma asserted that it has no liability and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. HP didn't appear before the District Commission for proceedings. Therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission noted that Complainant brought the laptop on 16-06-2020, and he started experiencing defects within the first month. Further, the District Commission noted that the Complainant sent the laptop to the authorized service center within the warranty period. However, instead of immediate rectification, the authorized service center of HP waited for the warranty to expire.

Therefore, the District Commission held that HP failed to provide a functional laptop to the Complainant. The District Commission held HP liable of deficiency in services for failure to rectify the manufacturing defect in the laptop. The complaint against Croma was dismissed.

Consequently, the District Commission directed HP to pay Rs. 35,490/- within thirty (30) days from the date of the order, with interest at 9% per annum from 08-06-2021 (date of laptop deposit) till the payment date. Additionally, it was also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant for mental pain, agony, professional loss, and harassment caused to him.