The Laptop That Came With a Wall
Rupam, a first-year student in Dibrugarh, buys a laptop for ₹68,000 from an online seller. His father pays by UPI. The listing says “one-year onsite warranty” and “no refund after delivery”. At five months the screen develops a purple band. The service centre refuses free repair, claiming “physical damage”, but gives no written report. The seller's app also added “extended warranty ₹4,999” to the cart, which Rupam says he never selected; the amount was debited. When Rupam calls, the seller says the “no refund” policy is final and offers a ₹3,000 coupon. Rupam has the invoice and the chat records. He wants a refund and compensation for the weeks without a laptop during his practical exams. Seven months have passed since delivery.
1. Identify the consumer rights violated and the unfair practices in this case, with reasons.
Read the worked answer
Rights violated:
- Right to safety - a laptop that fails at five months with a screen defect is not fit for its purpose; the seller or manufacturer must repair or replace it.
- Right to be informed - the refusal cites “physical damage” without a written report, so the buyer cannot verify the claim. The auto-added ₹4,999 extended warranty also means he was not told the true composition of the price.
- Right to choose - pre-selecting a paid add-on in the cart means consent was not free; this is an unfair trade practice.
- Right to seek redressal - the “no refund” response and the ₹3,000 coupon frustrate the statutory remedy.
Unfair practices: misleading warranty representation; charging for an unordered service; and imposing a term that excludes liability for defective goods. The “no refund after delivery” clause is an unfair contract term because it takes away the consumer's right to a remedy for a defect and was not a term Rupam freely bargained for.
2. Where should Rupam file a complaint and within what time? Explain jurisdiction and whether his father can be a complainant.
Read the worked answer
Forum: District Commission. Pecuniary jurisdiction: under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as amended by the 2021 jurisdiction rules, the District Commission hears complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation claimed does not exceed ₹50 lakh. ₹68,000 plus compensation is well within this limit.
Territorial jurisdiction: the complaint may be filed where the seller's office is situated or where the cause of action arose. The defect appeared and the refusal was communicated in Dibrugarh, so the Dibrugarh District Commission is appropriate. E-filing is permitted.
Time limit: within two years from the date the cause of action arises - here, the refusal to repair or refund. Seven months have passed, so he is within time, but he should not delay further while evidence is fresh.
Who may file: Rupam is a consumer as the user. His father, who paid consideration, is also a consumer and may file alone or jointly. A recognised consumer association may also file with Rupam's written consent. He should preserve the invoice, UPI record, chats and the service centre's refusal.
3. Advise on the relief Rupam can claim and evaluate the seller's “no refund” clause.
Read the worked answer
Reliefs to claim under section 39:
- Refund of ₹68,000, or replacement with a new laptop, or free repair;
- Refund of the ₹4,999 add-on charged without consent, with interest;
- Compensation for the deficiency and for the weeks without a laptop during practical exams, supported by evidence such as a borrowed laptop or missed submissions;
- Litigation costs;
- An order to withdraw the “no refund” clause and correct the misleading warranty statement.
Evaluation of the clause: a seller cannot contract out of statutory liability for defective goods. The clause is an unfair contract term and an unfair trade practice, so it does not bind Rupam. The seller's “physical damage” defence must be supported by a written service report; its absence weakens the defence, and the burden of showing misuse lies on the seller.
Practical step: first send a written complaint to the seller and its grievance officer and keep the acknowledgement, then file before the District Commission. If the defect is inherent, a product-liability claim against the manufacturer can also be considered.