Delhi Consumer Commission Holds TVS Electronics Liable For Failing To Repair Laptop Despite Charging Service Fees

Brief Facts

A.K. Panda, the complainant, purchased an HP ProBook 440 G2 laptop manufactured by HP Computing and Printing Systems India Pvt. Ltd. in February 2016. In October-November 2020, he began experiencing several issues with the device, including failure of Windows software updates, a malfunctioning web camera, and antivirus-related problems.

On 6 February 2021, the complainant approached the authorised service centre, TVS Electronics Ltd. (OP No.1), and paid a service charge of ₹350. According to the complainant, the service centre failed to rectify the defects and returned the laptop without carrying out any effective repair.

Dissatisfied, he contacted HP and Microsoft through Twitter on 7 February 2021 and was subsequently contacted by HP's Social Media Team. On 23 April 2021, he paid a further sum of ₹1,534 towards service charges and informed HP about the payment through email.

As the software-related issues remained unresolved, the complainant eventually repaired the software himself after consulting HP and Microsoft support groups. Later, on 4 December 2021, a technician visited him and identified that the web camera cable had rusted. Although the technician assured him that he would return with a replacement cable, he never did. The complainant also alleged that the technician lacked the expertise to resolve the software issues.

The complainant further submitted that while the service centre's job sheet recorded that the web camera issue had been resolved through cable refix and camera wiring, no proper diagnosis had been conducted and the cable remained damaged. When he again approached the service centre on 4 April 2022, instead of repairing the defect, he was merely provided with a quotation for replacement of the webcam cable.

Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant approached the District Consumer Commission seeking repair of the web camera, compensation, and litigation expenses. Despite service of notice, the opposite parties failed to appear or file their written statement, following which the Commission proceeded ex parte against them.

Observations & Decision

The Commission observed that the complainant was compelled to repeatedly approach the authorised service centre for rectification of defects in the laptop, particularly the malfunctioning web camera. It noted that despite levying service charges and claiming to have undertaken repairs, TVS Electronics failed to effectively rectify the defects.

The Commission further observed that although the service centre's job sheet stated that the web camera issue had been resolved through cable refix and camera wiring, the complainant had specifically recorded that no proper diagnosis had been carried out and that the camera cable remained damaged. The subsequent job sheet issued in April 2022 also showed that the webcam issue persisted and that the complainant was merely provided with a quotation for replacement.

Holding that TVS Electronics had failed to provide effective repair services despite charging the complainant, the Commission found OP No.1 guilty of deficiency in service.

Accordingly, the Commission directed TVS Electronics Ltd. to pay ₹25,000 as compensation for mental harassment and physical inconvenience and ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses. It further directed that the amount be paid within 60 days, failing which it would carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of the order until realization.

Case Title: A. K. PANDA vs TVS ELECTRONICS LTD.

Case No: CC NO. DC/AB1/670/CC/187/2023