E-Paper
Chandigarh: Shoddy service for defective laptop costs repair centre, retailer dear
Lenovo care centre, Sector 34, and Sector-20 based retailer told to refund full cost of defective laptop, pay ₹10,000 as compensation to Dhanas resident. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-1 said a seller’s liability is not only limited to selling product but also to take care of after-sale services
Observing that a seller’s liability is not only limited to selling the product but also to take care of after-sale services, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-1 has directed a laptop manufacturer and the retailer to refund full price of a defective laptop.
Ankit, a resident of Aman Colony, Dhanas, had purchased a Lenovo laptop for ₹59,000 from Atlantic Technologies, Sector 20 C, on February 15, 2020, and also paid ₹2,299 online on the Lenovo website for extended warranty.
However, soon after the purchase, the laptop screen developed some black spots. When he approached the seller to resolve the defect, he was turned down and asked to approach the Lenovo care centre in Sector 34, where the laptop screen was eventually replaced.
Then on September 1, 2020, the laptop stopped powering on. After writing an e-mail to the Lenovo centre on September 2, 2020, an engineer visited his house on September 12 and diagnosed a defect in the motherboard. But Lenovo dilly-dallied the matter on one pretext or the other, following which the complainant approached the consumer commission.
Contesting the complaint, the seller submitted that they sold the laptop in a sealed box as received from Lenovo India Private Limited. As such, there was no deficiency in service on their part.
The warranty for any manufacturing defect was provided by the manufacturer and the retailer had no authority to give any warranty, it was contended. No one appeared on behalf of the Lenovo care centre and they were proceeded against ex parte.
The commission observed that after selling the product, the retailer did not bother that the product in question, despite being expensive and branded, could not serve the purpose even for one year, despite major repairs of change of screen. It was the duty of both the retailer and the care centre to take proper follow up with the manufacturer to satisfy the complainant, it held.
As such, both the retailer and the care centre were directed to refund the laptop cost, while the complainant was asked to return the device.
They were also directed to pay the complainant ₹5,000 for mental harassment and ₹5,000 as litigation costs.
