Ernakulam District Commission Holds HP Laptops, Retailer, Liable For Deficiency In Service Due To Refusal To Repair During Warranty Period

Brief Facts of the Case

The complaint involves a dispute between the complainant, operating a Language Training Institute, the HP India Corporate Office/manufacturer, and a retail shop selling HP computers/retailer. The complainant purchased an HP laptop from the retailer, which came with a one-year warranty covering replacements for defects. Subsequently, the complainant faced issues with the laptop's keyboard and reported the same to the retailer and the manufacturer. Despite reporting the issue to the retail shop and HP Customer Care and receiving assurances of support, the problem remained unresolved. This led to the complainant being unable to use the laptop for business purposes, resulting in a claimed business loss of Rs. 3 lakhs. The complainant accuses the opposite parties of violating warranty terms by failing to repair or replace the defective laptop, attributing to financial loss and mental distress.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The manufacturer, renowned for manufacturing high-quality IT products, refuted all allegations of service deficiency and product defects except those explicitly admitted. It was asserted that the laptop in question was covered by a one-year warranty, which had expired. Despite acknowledging the complaints about the keyboard, they argued that the complainant's unavailability hindered attempts to resolve the issue. They suggested that mishandling or use of pirated software by the complainant could have contributed to the problems experienced. The manufacturer claimed that the complainant refused all the solutions provided to them, insisting on a full replacement or refund, which they argued was not supported by the warranty policy.

The retailer argued that the actual purchase date of the laptop was different from the complainant's claim. The retailer provided details of the transaction, noting the sale of the laptop, along with an additional HP backpack, under a specific invoice number. It was asserted that at the time of purchase, the complainant was informed about the warranty conditions, specifying that HP's customer care should address any issues within the warranty period. The retailer denied responsibility for the issues raised in the complaint, stating they advised the complainant to contact HP's customer care for any problems within the warranty period. They placed responsibility on the manufacturer and regional office for the matters discussed. It was emphasized that the retailer is not liable for repairing or replacing the laptop during the warranty period nor for any business losses suffered by the complainant.

Observations by the Commission

The Commission observed that the main issue revolves around the malfunctioning of the laptop's keyboard, which was reported just two days before the official purchase date. Despite assurances of support, including multiple communications and service requests, the issue remained unresolved. The manufacturer and the retailer denied responsibility but failed to provide adequate evidence to counter the complainant's claims. Moreover, the commission highlighted that the complainant presented documentary evidence, such as SMS messages and the invoice. The commission emphasized that these pieces of evidence establish a prima facie case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The commission determined that both the retailer and the manufacturer are collectively liable for the deficiencies in service and unfair trade practices. Despite attempting to shift responsibility, they are held accountable for the defective product and the losses suffered by the complainant. In this regard, the commission referred to the ruling in Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. Avinash Shetye & Anr. wherein the NCDRC ruled that it's crucial to safeguard consumer rights, which means manufacturers, retailers, and service providers must deliver quality products and services. The commission held the manufacturer and the retailer jointly and severally liable and directed them to either replace the laptop with a new one of the same model or refund the full purchase price to the complainant. The commission also directed them to compensate the complainant with Rs. 50,000 for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, which led to mental agony, hardships, and financial losses, and 10,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.

Case Title: Biju Jacob Vs. Hewlett Packard(HP)

Case Number: C.C No. 19/386

Click Here To Read/Download Order