Hyderabad court asks Lenovo to pay Rs 20k as compensation to customer

Hyderabad: The district consumer disputes redressal bench found Lenovo’s authorized service center accountable for a service deficiency on Saturday, February 3, after it was unable to repair a problem with a Lenovo Idea Pad laptop.

The complainant, a retired general assistant manager of the Hyderabad branch of the State Bank of India, Jaya Raman, bought the laptop from Amazon. She had issues shortly after the purchase, especially with the camera while attempting to participate in virtual conferences.

Raman troubleshoot her complaints via the company’s automated chat box but in vain. She took the laptop to the service center where the problem was fixed.

However, after a few days, the problem persisted and Jaya Raman she had to make a third trip to the service facility center.

Also Read

Hyderabad: Marut Drones deliver mineral exploration drone to NMDC

However, this time she was billed by the service center claiming the device was no longer under the warranty period. Frustrated, Jaya Raman was not happy and contacted both parties many times without receiving a suitable response forcing her to approach the district consumer.

Lenovo denied the accusations, claiming that they had principal-to-principal contact with the service center. It stated that the goods went through extensive quality inspections. It contended that although the complainant had first used warranty services, any further repairs were outside the scope of the one-year guarantee.

Additionally, the district commission never saw an appearance from the Amazon Seller and Service Center.

The district commission found that it was the complainant’s responsibility to demonstrate a manufacturing fault and concluded that the complainant had not shown enough proof to support her allegation that the Lenovo Pad had an innate manufacturing flaw. As such, the allegation of a manufacturing flaw cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The district commission found that the responsibility of proof for demonstrating a manufacturing fault rested with the complainant. After reviewing the evidence, the commission concluded that Jaya Raman did not provide enough proof to substantiate her claim regarding the manufacturing flaw.

The district commission, however, maintained that the problem’s inability to be fixed even after three repairs was indicative of a breakdown in the provision of satisfactory service.

As a result, the district commission decided against the service center and in the complainant’s favor. It ordered the service center to reimburse the complainant for Rs. 20,000 in compensation and Rs. 10,000 in litigation costs.