Order Name: Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vs HP India Corporate Office and Retailer
Let’s dive into a recent judgement made by the Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The commission, led by D.B. Binu, V. Ramachandran, and Sreevidhia. T.N., firmly stated that it is the duty of manufacturers, sellers, and service providers to offer quality products and services to uphold consumer rights.
Now, what’s the story here? A Language Training Institute, who was the complainant, bought an HP laptop from a retailer. It came with a one-year warranty which covers replacements for defects. However, the complainant faced issues with the laptop’s keyboard. Despite reaching out to the retailer and the manufacturer, the problem wasn’t resolved. This resulted in the complainant not being able to use the laptop for business, causing a loss of Rs. 3 lakhs. The complainant accused the opposing parties of failing to uphold the warranty terms.
The manufacturer, who is known for creating top-notch IT products, dismissed all complaints of product defects and poor service, except those explicitly confessed. They insisted that the laptop’s warranty had expired, and even though complaints about the keyboard were recognized, they claimed that the complainant’s unavailability hindered efforts to fix the problem. They also suggested that the complainant’s mishandling or use of pirated software could have caused these issues. The manufacturer felt that the complainant declined all the solutions offered, insisting on a complete replacement or refund, which was not covered by the warranty policy.
On the other hand, the retailer argued that the complainant’s claim of the laptop’s purchase date was incorrect. They produced transaction details, including the sale of the laptop and an HP backpack under a specific invoice number. They insisted that the complainant was made aware of the warranty terms at the time of purchase and was advised to reach out to HP’s customer care for any issues within the warranty period. The retailer denied responsibility for the complaint’s issues, shifting the blame on the manufacturer and regional office. They also emphasized that they were not responsible for repairing or replacing the laptop during the warranty period, nor for any business losses suffered by the complainant.
The Commission, after examining the case, highlighted that the main problem was the laptop’s malfunctioning keyboard, which was reported just two days before the official purchase date. Despite promises of support, the problem persisted. Both the manufacturer and the retailer denied responsibility but failed to provide adequate evidence to dispute the complainant’s claims. The Commission noted that the complainant presented documentary evidence, such as SMS messages and the invoice. This evidence proves a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The Commission ruled that both the retailer and the manufacturer are jointly liable for the defective product and the losses suffered by the complainant.
The Commission referenced the ruling in ‘Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. Avinash Shetye & Anr.’ where the NCDRC emphasized the importance of protecting consumer rights, which means manufacturers, retailers, and service providers must deliver quality products and services. As a result, the Commission ordered the manufacturer and the retailer to either replace the laptop with a new one of the same model or refund the full purchase price to the complainant. They were also directed to pay the complainant Rs. 50,000 for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, which caused mental stress, hardships, and financial losses, and Rs. 10,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.
The takeaway from this judgement is that consumer rights are paramount, and manufacturers, retailers, and service providers must take responsibility for any deficiencies in their goods or services. This ruling serves as a reminder that it’s essential for consumers to keep all documents related to their purchases, as they can be invaluable evidence in any legal disputes.
