LI Network
Published on: December 25, 2023 at 12:53 IST
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kerala, consisting of D.B. Banu (President), V. Ramachandran (Member), and Sreevidhia. T.N. (Member), has determined that Lenovo (India) is culpable of service deficiency and unfair trade practices.
This decision stems from the Opposite Party’s failure to respond and the findings of the expert commission.
Case Overview
The complaint was lodged under Section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, a financially disadvantaged member of the Scheduled Caste community, acquired a Lenovo laptop through a loan from the Kerala SC/ST Development Corporation for educational purposes.
However, the laptop exhibited issues, such as a body gap and a malfunctioning keyboard, within a week of purchase. Despite seeking assistance, the seller not only refused help but also subjected the complainant to ridicule, causing emotional distress.
The complainant asserts their status as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, arguing that the denial of service constitutes a deficiency and an unfair trade practice.
The laptop’s defects occurred within the one-year warranty period, covering parts, labor, on-site service, and accidental damage, as stated on Lenovo’s official website. While the complainant couldn’t document the service request procedure, attempts were made to contact the seller without resolution.
Opposite Party’s Stand
The Opposite Party failed to submit a written version before the District Commission, resulting in an ex-parte proceeding.
Commission’s Findings
The Commission deemed the petition maintainable, considering the complainant’s laptop purchase qualifies them as a consumer under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The Expert Commission Report was emphasized as crucial evidence supporting the complainant, confirming the laptop dysfunction within the warranty period due to issues like a non-functional screen and faulty touchpad.
The report underscored the complainant’s payment for Accidental Damage Protection and on-site warranty, asserting that addressing these issues promptly falls within the seller or company’s responsibility. These findings substantiate the complainant’s claims of service deficiency and unfair trade practice.
The Commission highlighted that the opposing parties’ deliberate omission to submit their written versions, despite notification, amounts to an acknowledgment of the allegations.
In this context, the complainant’s case stands unopposed, with no basis to doubt their statements over those of the opposing parties. A 2017 order by the Hon’ble National Commission (4 CPR page 590, NC) aligns with this position.
The commission directed the opposite party to refund the entire amount of Rs. 51,000 paid by the complainant for the purchase, along with Rs. 40,000 as compensation for service deficiency and Rs. 10,000 as litigation costs.
Case Title: Selvan T.K. Vs. Lenovo (India) Pvt Ltd. & Ors.
