Chandigarh Consumer Commission Holds Croma, HP Liable For Sale Of Laptop With Manufacturing Defect
The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Infiniti Retail Ltd. (Croma) and Hewlett Packard Global Soft Private Limited liable for deficiency in service for selling a laptop suffering from a manufacturing defect and failing to replace or refund the same despite repeated complaints. The Commission comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Brij Mohan...
The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Infiniti Retail Ltd. (Croma) and Hewlett Packard Global Soft Private Limited liable for deficiency in service for selling a laptop suffering from a manufacturing defect and failing to replace or refund the same despite repeated complaints.
The Commission comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Brij Mohan Sharma (Member) observed that failure of a core component like the motherboard within a short period of purchase itself indicates an inherent defect.
Brief Facts
The complainant, Kanika, purchased an HP laptop from Infiniti Retail Ltd. (Croma) (OP No.1) on 02 October 2020 for a consideration of ₹40,488. Within 8–10 days, the laptop began showing per-formance issues relating to the Windows operating system and web browsers. On her complaint, the laptop was sent to the authorised service centre, where the issues were temporarily rectified.
However, on 19 December 2020 — within about two and a half months of purchase — the laptop again developed defects and the screen turned black. Upon inspection, the authorised service cen-tre opined that the motherboard required replacement. The complainant's request for replacement of the laptop was forwarded to the head office but was declined by Hewlett Packard Global Soft Private Limited (OP No.2).
Aggrieved by repeated failures of a new laptop and the refusal to replace it even after issuance of a legal notice, the complainant approached the District Commission seeking replacement or refund along with compensation for mental agony and loss of studies.
Croma contended that it was merely a retailer and could not be held liable for any manufacturing defect. Hewlett Packard argued that as per warranty terms, replacement or refund was not permis-sible and that the defect could be rectified by replacing the motherboard. It was further contended that no manufacturing defect had been proved in the absence of expert evidence. The authorised service centre remained ex parte.
Observations & Decision Of The Commission
Rejecting the defences raised, the Commission noted that the Opposite Parties failed to place any documentary evidence to show that they were willing to replace the motherboard and that the complainant had refused such repair.
The Commission held that the motherboard is a vital component of a laptop, and its failure within about two and a half months of purchase was itself sufficient to infer an inherent manufacturing defect, even in the absence of expert evidence.
It further observed that refusal to replace the defective laptop or refund the amount despite the product being under warranty amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Accordingly, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to:
1. Refund ₹40,488, being the invoice price of the laptop, along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint (17 June 2021) till realization;
2. The complainant shall return the laptop to the Opposite Parties at their risk and cost;
3. Pay ₹10,000 towards compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
Case Title:
Kanika Vs. Infiniti Retails Ltd. (Croma) & Ors.
Consumer Complaint No. CC/160/2021