Failure To Resolve Issues With Lenovo Idea Pad, Hyderabad District Commission Holds Lenovo's Service Centre Liable For Deficiency In Service

Brief Facts:

Mrs Jaya Raman (“Complainant”), a retired Assistant General Manager of State Bank of Hyderabad, purchased a Lenovo Idea Pad Laptop from the online shopping website, Amazon India (“Amazon”). The product, manufactured by Lenovo (India) Private Limited (“Lenovo”) and sold by Appario Retail Private Limited (“Amazon Seller”), started facing problems within a few months, particularly with the camera when the Complainant wanted to attend virtual conferences. Despite attempts to troubleshoot the pad through Levono's automated chat box, the issues persisted. The Complainant eventually took the pad to Lenovo's Service Centre (“Service Center”), which repaired it. Later, the Complainant started facing the same issues and therefore, she approached the service centre. The service centre charged money from the Complainant for the third repair, stating that the product was out of warranty. Dissatisfied, the Complainant made several communications but didn't receive any satisfactory response from either of the parties. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad, Telangana (District Commission) and filed a consumer complaint against Amazon, Amazon Seller, Lenovo and its service centre.

In response, Amazon denied liability for defective products, asserting that it merely facilitates transactions between buyers and sellers. It argued that the Complainant's purchase was a bipartite agreement between her and the seller, the third party. It referred to the "Conditions of Use," denying responsibility for product quality stating that the dispute was primarily between buyers and sellers. Additionally, it cited a disclaimer under Clause 13, highlighting that it does not endorse product transactions and has no obligations or liabilities in such matters.

Lenovo contested the allegations, stating their relationship with the service centre was on a principal-to-principal basis. It claimed the products undergo stringent quality checks. It argued that the Complainant availed warranty services in the initial instances, but subsequent repairs fell outside the one-year warranty period. The Amazon Seller and Service Center didn't appear before the District Commission.

Observations by the Commission:

Regarding the determination of a manufacturing defect, the District Commission acknowledged that there is a settled law that the burden to prove such a defect rests on the Complainant. Despite the filing of an interim application for a technical expert's appointment, the Complainant didn't provide cogent evidence or expert opinion to substantiate her claim that there was an inherent manufacturing defect in the Lenovo Pad. Therefore, the District Commission held that it cannot be conclusively established that the product had a manufacturing defect, especially when it stopped working almost seven months after the purchase.

Concerning the liability of Amazon and its seller, the District Commission noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the Lenovo Pad was dysfunctional from the time of purchase. It noted that camera issues arose after seven months. As a result, the District Commission held that there was insufficient evidence to prove deficiency of service attributable to Amazon, its seller and Lenovo.

However, the District Commission held that the recurrence of camera problems since May 2021 demonstrated that after-sales service was deficient by the service centre. Therefore, the District Commission held that the failure to resolve the issue even after three repairs indicated a lapse in providing satisfactory service.

Consequently, the District Commission ruled in favour of the Complainant against the service centre. The District Commission directed the service centre to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards the costs of litigation incurred by the Complainant.

Case Title: Jaya Rama vs Amazon India and Others

Case No.: C.C. No. 337 / 2022

Advocate for the Complainant: P.V. Janani & Associates

Advocate for the Respondent: Harshavardhan Abburi and K.V.R. Chowdary