Delhi Consumer Commission Orders Lenovo To Refund ₹25,000, Pay ₹20,000 Compensation For Defective Laptop

Brief Facts of the Case:

The complainant, Mohd Danish, purchased a Lenovo IdeaPad Slim 3 laptop on 13.10.2020 from Croma Retail ( O.P No. 2) for ₹44,089, along with a three-year AMC from Lenovo (O.P No.1) for ₹1,499, covering free onsite repair.

Soon after purchase, the laptop began developing display and performance-related issues. The problems worsened over time, and between March 2023 and July 2023, the complainant raised several service tickets with Lenovo India . Although the technicians visited multiple times and attempted repairs, including replacement of parts such as the LCD panel and motherboard, the defects persisted.

The complainant repeatedly contacted customer support, sent follow-up emails, and even issued a speed-post complaint, but the problems remained unresolved. Alleging a manufacturing defect and deficiency in service, he approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North-East Delhi, seeking a refund of ₹45,588 (the cost of the laptop including AMC), along with compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses.

Contentions of the Complainant

The complainant contended that the Lenovo laptop he purchased from Croma soon began showing recurring defects, including display flickering, blank screen issues, RAM problems, and performance failures. Despite raising multiple service tickets between March and July 2023, and despite repeated part replacements such as LCD panel and motherboard, the laptop continued to malfunction. He alleged that the device suffered from a manufacturing defect and that Lenovo failed to provide a lasting solution even under a valid AMC.

Contentions of the Opposite Parties

Lenovo (O.P. No. 1) denies all allegations. It argued that the laptop was not defective at the time of sale and that all issues raised by the complainant were addressed through timely repairs and part replacements under the AMC. Lenovo contended that no manufacturing defect existed and that the complainant is not entitled to a refund, as the warranty terms provide only for repair, not replacement.

Croma Retail (O.P. No. 2), though duly served with notice, did not appear before the Commission and failed to file any reply. Accordingly, its right to file a written statement was closed by order dated 20.05.2024

Observations and Decision of the Commission:

The Commission noted that the complainant had raised multiple service tickets between March and July 2023, and that Lenovo technicians repeatedly attempted repairs, including replacing the LCD panel and motherboard. Despite these interventions, the laptop continued to malfunction, indicating persistent defects. Since the issues remained unresolved even after repeated repairs, the Commission concluded that there was deficiency in service.

The Commission allowed the complaint and noted that although the complainant had used the laptop for more than two years, the persistent issues and failed repair attempts warranted relief. Accordingly, Opposite Party No. 1 (Lenovo) was directed to pay ₹25,000 to the complainant, along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until recovery.

The Commission further directed the Lenovo to pay ₹10,000 towards mental harassment and ₹10,000 towards litigation expenses, both carrying interest at 9% per annum from the date of the order until realization.

Case Title: Mohd Danish vs. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: 287/33

Click Here To Read/Download Order