Ernakulam District Commission Holds Lenovo(India) Liable For Deficiency In Service

Brief Facts of the Case

The complaint had been filed under Section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, a financially disadvantaged Scheduled Caste community member, purchased a Lenovo laptop with a loan from the Kerala SC/ST Development Corporation for educational purposes. However, the laptop developed issues, including a body gap and a malfunctioning keyboard, within a week of purchase. Despite seeking help, the seller not only refused assistance but also ridiculed the complainant, leading to emotional distress. The complainant contends that they meet the criteria as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. It has been argued that the denial of service is considered a deficiency and an unfair trade practice since the laptop experienced defects within the one-year warranty period, which covers parts, labour, on-site service, and accidental damage, according to Lenovo's official website. Although the complainant couldn't document the service request procedure, attempts were made to contact the seller without achieving a resolution.

Contention of the Opposite Party

The Opposite party failed to file its written version before the District Commission. Thus, it was proceeded against ex-parte.

Observations by the Commission

The Commission held that the petition was maintainable as the complainant's purchase of the laptop qualifies the complainant as a consumer under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The court underscored the significance of the Expert Commission Report as crucial evidence supporting the complainant. The report confirmed the laptop's dysfunction within the warranty period due to issues like a non-functional screen and faulty touchpad. The report highlighted the complainant's payment for Accidental Damage Protection and on-site warranty, emphasizing that promptly addressing these issues lies with the seller or the company. These findings substantiate the complainant's claims of service deficiency and unfair trade practice. The bench elucidated that the deliberate omission of the opposing parties to submit their written versions, despite being notified by the Commission, is tantamount to an acknowledgment of the allegations against them. In this situation, the complainant's case remains unopposed by the opposing party, and there is no basis to doubt the complainant's statements over those of the opposing parties. The Hon'ble National Commission maintained a similar position in a 2017 order (4 CPR page 590, NC).

The commission directed the opposite party to refund the entire amount paid by the Complainant for the purchase, i.e., Rs. 51,000, along with Rs. 40,000 as compensation for the deficiency in service and Rs. 10,000 as litigation costs.

Counsel for the Complainant: Adv. K.S. Sherimon

Counsel for the Opposing party: Adv. M.S. Amal Dharsan & Adv. Noel Jacob

Case Title: Selvan T.K. Vs. Lenovo (India) Pvt Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number: C.C. No.- 486/2015

Click Here To Read/Download The Order