Heating And Battery Replacement Issues, Kozhikode District Commission Directs HP India To Pay Rs. 25k Compensation

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kozhikode (Kerala) bench comprising of P.C Paulachen (President), V Balakrishnan (Member) and Priya S (Member) held HP India liable for deficiency in service for selling a laptop which started experiencing multiple issues within a few days of its purchase. HP India further failed to sufficiently resolve the Complainant's continued concerns. The bench directed HP India to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the Complainant. Brief Facts: Mr Arun Kumar (“Complainant”) wanted to purchase a new laptop for doing his office work. After his initial search, he found a 2018 HP laptop model named HP Pav x360 Convert 14 best suited for his use. Therefore, he went on the website maintained by HP where the price for the laptop was displayed as Rs. 94,752/-. The Complainant purchased the laptop with a basic warranty of one year from the date of purchase and an additional warranty for 2 years for Rs. 94,752/-. The laptop was delivered to him within a few days. However, after a few days only, the laptop started experiencing difficulties and wasn't performing well. Due to this, the Complainant approached HP. HP sent a service engineer who identified that there were issues related to the heating, display and keyboard of the laptop. Further, the service engineer found that there were technical problems with the mentioned parts and replaced them. The replacements were done within a year of the purchase of the laptop. However, after the repairs done by the service engineer, the laptop displayed a message prompting battery replacement. The Complainant reported the issue to HP, whose service engineer recommended for battery replacement. Later, HP informed the Complainant that the replacement of the battery was not covered by the additional 2-year warranty and it also offered a 10% discount to the Complainant for the battery replacement. The Complainant contended that the battery issue resulted from manufacturing defects, emphasizing that all parts and accessories were covered by the additional warranty. After subsequent communications with HP and receiving an unsatisfactory reply, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kozhikode, Kerala (“District Commission”). HP failed to appear before the District Commission. Hence, it was proceeded against ex-parte. Observations by the Commission: The primary contention before the District Commission raised by the Complainant centred around the demand for a replacement of the laptop with a brand new one or, as an alternative, a refund of the purchase price, citing an alleged manufacturing defect. The District Commission noted that it was evident that there was a lack of concrete proof demonstrating any inherent manufacturing defect in the laptop. The complaint and the supporting proof affidavit contained only vague averments without specific allegations regarding a manufacturing defect. The District Commission further observed that the Complainant failed to provide any technical or expert report substantiating the claim that there was a manufacturing defect in the laptop. Due to the absence of such evidence, the District Commission rejected the prayer for a replacement of the laptop or a refund of the price of the laptop. However, the District Commission acknowledged the Complainant's grievances and the evidence presented by him concerning the history of repairs of the laptop. It was apparent that the Complainant experienced severe mental distress and hardships due to the recurrent failures of the laptop, significantly impacting his ability to use the device for office work. Soon after the purchase, the laptop presented various problems related to heating, display, and keyboard, leading to the replacement of parts. Additionally, issues with the battery arose. Despite the Complainant's requests for the assistance of an experienced service engineer, HP failed to address the matter, even after multiple reminders. The District Commission held that causing continuous inconvenience to the purchaser would amount to a deficiency in service. In light of this, the District Commission directed HP to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant for the inconvenience caused to him.Case Title: Arun Kumar vs HP India Pvt. Ltd. Case No.: CC/107/2021 Advocate for the Complainant: N.A. Advocate for the Respondent: Noushad Kallada Click Here To Read/Download Order

Heating And Battery Replacement Issues, Kozhikode District Commission Directs HP India To Pay Rs. 25k Compensation

Smita Singh

Tags