Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CONSUMER) 38
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION RANGA REDDY
Chitneni Latha Kumari, President, Madhavi Sasanakota, Member, Kathyayani Khandavilli, Member
Jerin George – Appellant
Versus
HP India Sales Private Limited – Respondent
CC 477/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Party-In-Person
For the Respondents: Ex-Parte
Failure to disclose material product specifications, use of misleading marketing imagery, and imposition of an undisclosed, one-sided return policy constitute unfair trade practices and deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 2(9)(ii), 2(46)(vi), 2(47)(i)(a), 35, 84(1)(b), 89 - Consumer Dispute - Deficiency of Service - Misleading Advertisement - Unfair Trade Practice - Unfair Contract - Failure to disclose material specifications of product (display panel type) and imposition of one-sided return policy after purchase constitutes deficiency in service. (Paras 6, 8, 13)
Facts of the case:
The complainant purchased a laptop from the opposite party's website based on ambiguous specifications. Upon delivery, the display was found to be defective, exhibiting excessive blue tint and uneven lighting, causing physical discomfort. Despite immediate requests for return, the opposite party rejected the claim citing a one-sided return policy, which was not disclosed at the time of purchase. Contradictory information regarding the display panel type was provided by the opposite party's staff on multiple occasions.
Findings of Court:
The commission found that the opposite party engaged in unfair trade practices by failing to transparently disclose the display panel type and utilizing misleading stock images in advertisements. The unilateral imposition of a return policy that prohibits returns once a seal is opened—without prior notification—was deemed an unfair contract. The opposite party's failure to appear further highlighted their indifferent attitude.
Issues: Whether the non-disclosure of specifications, use of misleading advertisements, and the imposition of a non-disclosed return policy constitute deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Ratio Decidendi: A manufacturer is liable for product design defects, and consumers have the fundamental right to be informed about the quality and standards of goods. Withholding material specifications and utilizing misleading marketing materials to influence purchase decisions, combined with an undisclosed, one-sided return policy, constitutes a clear deficiency in service.
Result: Complaint allowed in part. The opposite party is directed to refund the purchase price with 9% interest, plus compensation and costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court holds manufacturer liable for deficient service, misleading marketing, and unfair contract terms. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. deliberate concealment of product specifications and misleading advertising constitutes unfair trade practice. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. unilateral imposition of return policies lacking pre-purchase disclosure is an unfair contract. (Para 13 , 14) |
This complaint is filed by the complainant U/Sec.35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying this Commission to direct the Opposite Party i) to accept the return of the product sold to the Complainant, on the grounds that it is (a) defective in respect of its display, and (b) sold by adopting unfair trade practices and unfair contract, and to refund the sum of Rs.60,564/- paid towards its purchase, together with applicable interest from the date of payment until realization. ii) Impose a penalty upon the Opposite Party for the use of misrepresentative advertisements to market the product under section 89 of the Act. iii) Award costs to the Complainant towards legal expenses incurred in pursuing this complaint. iv)Award compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant towards the mental agony, harassment, and loss of valuable time suffered in pursuing this matter.v) Issue appropriate directions or orders to restrain the Opposite Party from engaging in deceptive marketing practices and from imposing one-sided return policies and vi) grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit in the interests of justice and to safeguard consumers from similar unfair practices in the future
O R D E R
(PER SE. SMT.MADHAVI SASANAKOTA, MEMBER
ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)
I. Brief Facts of the complaint:
1. Brief facts of the complaint as made out by the Complainant are that the Complainant purchased HP Laptop 35.6 (14) 14 ep0340TU, Silver along with a 2 year extended warranty and 3 year accidental protection coverage from Opposite party on 30.07.2025 and the purchase was done through Opposite party’s website live chat and a phone call with the sales team of the Opposite party and said product was delivered on 05.08.2025 but on delivery, found to be defective in its display rendering it unfit for proper use. Despite Complainant’s immediate request for return and refund, the Opposite party rejected the same by invoking one-sided return policy.
2. As part of the purchase of the said product, a quote was emailed to the Complainant by the Opposite party specifying the product, price, terms and conditions and the price of the said product is quoted as Rs.74,364/-, of which Rs.58,065/- is the Price of the Laptop and Rs.16,299/- is for the extended warranty and accidental protection coverage. Complainant submitted that prior to receiving the email quote, it was mentioned on the website and confirmed by discussion with the executive of the Opposite party one Mr. MidhatMehmood that the extended warranty and accidental protection coverage were for Rs.4,499/-, although it was not updated in the quote. The executive of the Opposite party mentioned that on the payment page, the total amount will be Rs.62,564/- although in the quote the amount is Rs.14,364/-. Complainant received a discount of Rs.2,000/- for payment via UPI and by deducting it, he has paid Rs.60,564/- and received the Order confirmation email from the Opposite party shortly after paying the final amount but, the final amount paid of Rs.60,564/- and discount of Rs.2000/- obtained for payment via UPI were not updated in the order confirmation email and invoice.
3. The product was delivered on 05.08.2025, however, the invoice was generated by a distributor/supplier/vendor company, Savex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. about whom the Complainant got to know only on receiving the said Invoice.
4. Complainant unboxed the package and after complete setting up of the product, the Complainant noticed serious issues with the Product’s display as it is unable to produce a proper white scree
