Ernakulam District Consumer Commission Orders HP India And Sysmantech To Refund And Compensate Over Defective Laptop

Brief Facts of the Case:

The complainant, Abraham Paul, a Biomedical Engineering student at Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences, Coimbatore, purchased an HP OMEN 16.1” Gaming Laptop (Model 16-b1350TX) on July 2, 2022, for ₹1,14,000/-. The laptop came with a 1+4-year warranty.

Within a month of purchase, the trackpad of the laptop malfunctioned. Although the issue was repaired by a technician, the defect recurred repeatedly, as reflected in the service record dated December 14, 2022. Later, in June 2024, the keyboard also began to malfunction. Upon inspection by the authorized service center, the technician reported that the problem was caused by a faulty motherboard.

The complainant repeatedly contacted HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 1) and the vendor (Opposite Party No. 2), but no effective or lasting solution was provided. HP also admitted that the necessary spare parts were unavailable. Due to these persistent defects and the lack of proper after-sales service, the laptop became unusable, directly affecting the complainant's academic work.

The complainant also sent a detailed email complaint to HP India, but received no response or resolution. Consequently, he filed a consumer complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, alleging that the laptop suffered from a manufacturing defect and that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

Aggrieved by the company's inaction, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, seeking redressal. He alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, and prayed for a refund of ₹1,14,000 with 12% annual interest, ₹50,000 as compensation for mental agony and academic loss, and litigation expenses.

Contentions of the Parties:

The complainant, Abraham Paul, stated that within a month of purchase, the trackpad of his laptop malfunctioned, followed by defects in the keyboard and motherboard. Despite repeated repairs, the faults persisted, indicating an inherent manufacturing defect. He repeatedly informed HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Sysmantech via emails, calls, and complaints, but no permanent solution was provided. HP also admitted that spare parts were unavailable, breaching warranty obligations. The laptop's prolonged malfunction disrupted his studies, causing mental stress and financial loss, leading him to claim refund, interest, compensation, and litigation costs.

The opposite parties were duly served but did not appear or submit any written response, resulting in the Commission proceeding ex parte. As no evidence was presented to rebut the claims, the Commission held that the complainant's allegations remained uncontested and concluded that there was a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by both opposite parties.

Observations and Decision of the Commission:

The Commission observed that both opposite parties were duly served but neither filed any reply nor appeared, and were therefore declared ex parte. The complainant's documents showed that the laptop developed defects within months of purchase, which persisted despite repeated repairs. The authorized service report confirmed that the keyboard and motherboard malfunctioned due to a manufacturing defect, and customer service communications showed that required spare parts were unavailable, indicating failure to provide proper warranty service. Being a student, the complainant suffered mental distress, inconvenience, and academic loss due to the prolonged malfunction. On this uncontested evidence, the Commission held that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Accordingly, the Commission partially accepted the complaint and ordered the opposite parties to jointly refund ₹1,14,000 against return of the laptop with accessories within 45 days, pay ₹20,000 as compensation, and ₹5,000 for litigation costs. Refund and laptop return were to be processed simultaneously with assistance for data backup. Non-compliance within 45 days would attract 9% annual interest from 07.09.2024.

Case Title: Abraham Paul vs. HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Sysmantech

Case No.: CC.No. 1128 of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download The Order