Thrissur District Commission Holds HP Dealer And Its Service Centre Liable For Deficiency In Service For Charging Money During Warranty Period

Background Facts

The complainant who is a student bought a laptop from the first opposite party dealer on June 8, 2020 for Rs. 34,500. Within a few months the laptop developed issues but it was fixed following phone instructions on July 12, 2020 and February 11, 2021.

However, in March 2021, the laptop malfunctioned again and became unusable. When the complainant took the laptop to the first opposite party dealer they refused to accept it saying that the second opposite party service centre handled repairs.

The first opposite party informed the complainant that the service centre closes after 7 PM daily so the laptop couldn't be handed over that day. Soon after lockdown was imposed due to the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic preventing the complainant from visiting the service centre.

On June 24, 2021, the complainant managed to deliver the laptop to the service centre which issued an acceptance report. Although the laptop was returned after repairs on July 1, 2021, the service centre charged the complainant Rs. 850 even though the fault occurred during the warranty period. Further, the laptop malfunctioned again the same week.

The complainant contended that the laptop has a manufacturing defect and that the opposite parties failed to provide free repairs during the warranty period, indicating a deficiency in service.

Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, Kerala, seeking an order directing the opposite parties to replace the laptop with a new one, along with compensation and costs.

Observation by Commission

On the issue of the manufacturing defect, the Commission, relying on the National Commission order in the case of T&T Motors Ltd. & Anr Vs. Pawan Gupta, held that since there is no evidence suggesting a manufacturing defect in the laptop it cannot direct the replacement of the laptop with a new one.

The Commission observed that charging the complainant for fixing defects in the laptop during the warranty period is an act of unfair practice by the second opposite party and constitutes a deficiency in service.

Furthermore, the Commission found a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by the first opposite party dealer because they failed to coordinate the necessary service for the laptop despite the complainant initially bringing it to them.

Therefore, the Commission directed the second opposite party to refund the money charged by the service centre (i.e., Rs. 850) along with 9% interest. Additionally, the Commission directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation and Rs. 7,500 as litigation costs.

Case – Ann Mary Versus HP World, Phoenix Systems and anr

Citation – CC 412/21

Click Here To Read/Download The Order