HP Liable For Concealing Laptop Display Panel Specifications: Ranga Reddy Consumer Commission
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy, comprising President Smt. Chinthineni Latha Kumari and Members Smt. Madhavi Sasanakota and Smt. K. Kathiyayani Khanday, held HP India Sales Private Limited guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for concealing the laptop's display panel specifications, using misleading advertisements, and wrongfully denying...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy, comprising President Smt. Chinthineni Latha Kumari and Members Smt. Madhavi Sasanakota and Smt. K. Kathiyayani Khanday, held HP India Sales Private Limited guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for concealing the laptop's display panel specifications, using misleading advertisements, and wrongfully denying the consumer's refund request.
Brief Facts
The complainant, a student, purchased an HP Laptop 35.6 (14) on 30 July 2025 from HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd. through its official website for ₹60,564, along with an extended warranty and accidental damage protection.
Upon delivery, the complainant found that the laptop's display had a bluish tint, uneven lighting and poor screen quality, causing eye strain and headaches during use. Despite immediately requesting a return and refund, HP allegedly refused the request by invoking its return policy after the laptop had been unboxed.
Alleging that HP concealed the display panel specifications, used misleading advertisements and deceptive product images, and unfairly denied a refund, the complainant approached the Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, seeking refund of the purchase price, compensation and litigation costs.
Despite notice, HP failed to file its written version within the prescribed period, following which the Commission proceeded ex parte.
Observations and Decision:
The Commission observed that HP failed to clearly disclose the laptop's display panel specifications before the sale and used misleading product images and descriptions that created a false impression about the display quality. It also noted that HP provided inconsistent information regarding the panel type and unjustifiably denied the complainant's refund request by relying on a return policy that had not been adequately disclosed. The Commission held that these acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Accordingly, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed HP to refund ₹60,564 with 9% interest per annum from 30 July 2025 till realization, subject to the complainant returning the laptop. It also awarded ₹10,000 as compensation for mental agony and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs. The Commission further directed compliance within 45 days, failing which the refund amount would carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default until realization.
Case Title: Jerin George v. HP India Sales Private Limited
Case Number: CC No. 477/2025