Sign in

Consumer commission awards ₹60k refund for laptop repair

The complainant alleged that despite an active warranty on her laptop, the service centre took money for repairs, which amounted to deficiency in service; hence, she filed a complaint with the consumer commission

Updated on: May 2, 2024, 08:24:06 IST
By , Chandigarh
Share
Share via
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • linkedin
  • whatsapp
Copy link
  • copy link

Pulling up a computer service centre for demanding 60,000 from a city-based woman for a laptop’s repair despite active warranty, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed the centre to refund the money.

Chandigarh resident was charged  ₹60,000 by laptop service centre despite active warranty. (iStock)
Chandigarh resident was charged ₹60,000 by laptop service centre despite active warranty. (iStock)

The complainant, Gagandeep Kaur, 40, a resident of Sector 49, had filed a case against Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd New Delhi; Asus Technology Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, and F1 Info Solution and Services Pvt Ltd, Chandigarh.

The woman complained that she bought an Asus laptop from Amazon for 88,990 amid the Covid-19 pandemic in January 2021. She bought the laptop for her son Arman Walia, who was pursuing computer engineering, and due to the pandemic, needed it to attend classes from home.

But soon after the purchase, the laptop developed charging issues. She approached Asus Technology’s local service station (F1 Info Solution and Services Pvt Ltd).

But the service centre claimed that the laptop’s motherboard was damaged due to inserting the charger deep in the charging socket, and demanded 60,000 for repairs.

The complainant alleged that despite an active warranty, the service centre took money for repairs, which amounted to deficiency in service. Hence, she filed a complaint with the consumer commission.

Disposing of the complaint, the commission said, “The service centre had not repaired the laptop in question during the warranty period, despite requests, which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the centre caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant.”

Thus, the commission directed the service centre to refund 60,000 to the complainant within 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.