Hyderabad: Consumer panel asks Lenovo to pay Rs 91,441 to Banjara Hills CA for faulty laptop
Irshad approached District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad, alleging unfair commercial practices by Lenovo India
By Sistla Dakshina Murthy Published on 19 Feb 2024 5:00 AM GMTHyderabad: Mohammad Irshad Ahmed, a chartered accountant (CA), and a resident of Banjara Hills recently won a case in the consumer courts against Lenovo India, a leading manufacturer of computers, laptops, and other related accessories and allied products.
The Court ordered Lenovo India to refund Irshad Ahmed Rs 61,441 (the actual price of the product), pay a compensation of Rs 20,000 for deficiency of service, and Rs 10,000 to cover the legal costs within 45 days of the receipt of the order.
Case details
Irshad Ahmed purchased a laptop from an official Lenovo India dealer on January 4, 2023, after being drawn in by the company's advertisements. He chose the LENOVO TP E14 21EX3S04X00 model, which retails for Rs 72,500. However, as of February 2023, the laptop has been experiencing issues.
After filing a complaint with Lenovo Indiaās customer service, the technician replaced the laptop's battery with a new one and it began operating normally. In April 2023, Irshad Ahmed reported heating up and operating system problems to customer service. The technician has attempted to resolve the issue, but it has not been done so.
The technician informed Irshad Ahmed that the matter would be forwarded to the relevant department. He even sent an email to the relevant department after he had not heard back from them, but they did not respond appropriately. Irshad Ahmed has reported issues, and the other party has not addressed them, resulting in both financial loss and emotional distress.
Accordingly, Irshad Ahmed approached District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad, alleging unfair commercial practices and a deficiency in service by Lenovo India, and he has requested that the Commission grant him justice in the matter. Lenovo India argued that, while refuting the claims and accusations contained in the complaint, it is merely an abuse of legal procedure and should be rejected.
Lenovo India argues no lack of service
Lenovo India further argued that there is no lack of service because it had provided the most appropriate resolution and taken the required steps to address the concerns brought up by Irshad Ahmed. It is averred that Lenovo India always endeavors to provide excellent after-sales service and authorized service centers. It is further averred that, as and when Irshad Ahmed had approached Lenovo India with a heating up issue and operating system issue, the service technician duly attended to the issue raised by him, therefore, Irshad Ahmed is not entitled to either replacement or refund.
Lenovo India argued that every electrical product is driven by software, and how it is used is a crucial factor that must be considered. It also argued that a minor problem resulting from normal wear and tear or from not using the goods as directed by the instruction manual does not automatically mean that the product has manufacturing flaws. Additionally, in an act of goodwill, the opposing party provides free-of-cost (FOC) hardware repair for any problems.
Lenovo India denies allegations of deficiency of service
Hence, denying the allegations of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on their part, Lenovo India has prayed to the Commission to dismiss the complaint. During the inquiry, the Court noticed that it is quite evident from the pleadings and documentary evidence that the issues were noticed within one-and-half-a-month of the purchase of the laptop. Though Lenovo India, while handing over the laptop to Irshad Ahmed claimed to rectify the issues, he had to come back to Lenovo India with other issues.
Thus, the purchaser of the laptop had been saddled with a defective and troublesome product which had caused mental stress and agony to him Therefore, the stand of the complainant in insisting on the return of the price paid by him was fully justified.