BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE                        

Dated this the 18^th January 2017

PRESENT

  SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D       : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

  SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR                    : HON’BLE MEMBER

  SMT. SHARADAMMA H.G                : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDER IN

C.C.No.89/2013

(Admitted on 19.03.2013)

Prashanth Padiyar,

Aged 47 years,

Residing at Flat No. 503, Sheshkamal Apartment,

Near Barke Police Station, Matada Kani Cross Road,

Gandhi Nagar, Mangalore  575 003.

                                                                                       ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: MPK)

VERSUS

1. The Store Manager,

    The M/s. Reliance Digital

    2^nd Floor, City Centre Mall,

    K.S. Rao Road, Hampankatta,

    Mangalore 575 001.

2. Apple India Private Limited,

    19 Floor, Concorde Tower C,

    UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road,

    Bangalore  560 001

    Rep. by its authorized signatory/ M.D.

                                                                            ….........OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1: Sri. BGS)

(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2: Sri. KPVR)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER

SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR:

1. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties claiming certain reliefs to refund total purchase price Rs.76,900/- along with the money paid for software purchase Rs.1,800/- and to deliver the replacement laptop received from Apple.

2.    In support of the above complainants Mr. Prashanth Padiyar filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him. On behalf of the opposite parties Mr. Deepak Jain (RW1) Authorized signatory, also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R3 as detailed in the annexure here below.

              The brief facts of the case are as under:  

     We perused the complaint and the version averments. As per averments the dispute is related to a laptop purchased by the complainant which turned defective and amount not refunded as requested by the complainant.  The complaint states that he had purchased a laptop form the Opposite party no 1 and found defective. He lodged complaint with Opposite party no 1 and the Opposite party no 1 could not able to repair it. The complainant requested verbally for the refund of the money from the opposite party no 1. However the opposite party no 2 on request by the complainant replaced the laptop with new one which was received by the complainant. The complainant’s grievance is he had asked for the refund of the money but not replacement. The opposite party no 2 was impleaded on the instance of the opposite party no 1 having taken non joinder issue in the version. These being the facts of dispute, in resolving we consider the following

POINT FOR ADJUDICATION

     We considered the evidence of the rival parties and the documents produced. The Opposite party no 1 admitted the purchase of the laptop and defect in it and a major problem in the laptop also, but denied that the complainant had made a request for refund made with them. Opposite party no 2 contested that, since they have replaced the laptop on the request of the complainant and to the satisfaction of the complainant there is no deficiency of service on their part. These are the facts involved in the dispute we consider the following points to be adjudicated in resolving this dispute.

1. Whether under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the complainant proved deficiency on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for?
4. What order?

         On considering the adduced evidences and documents produced and notes of arguments filed. After hearing the submission of the parties, we answered the above points as under.

1. In the affirmative.
2. In the negative.
3. In the negative.
4. As per delivered order.

REASON

POINT NO 1: The complainant had purchased laptop from Opposite parties is evident from the invoice no 885909582914 dated 17.12.2012 and it is not disputed. Hence there formed a relation of consumer and trader between the complainant and the opposite parties. Hence we answered the point no 1 in the affirmative.

POINT NO 2 & 3: The complainant’s case is on finding defect in the laptop he complained to the Opposite party no 1, The M/S Reliance digital who sold the laptop to the complainant. The opposite party no 1 had referred the laptop for rectifying the defect to the APPLE service center of the opposite party no 2, The Apple India Private Ltd,  the manufacturer of the laptop. The solution of replacing the mother board of the laptop in curing the defect is not acceptable to the complainant and requested verbally the opposite party no 1 for the refund of the money as he already made an alternative arrangements. Complainant also alleges that with the understanding with opposite party no 1 for facilitating refund, the complainant approached the opposite  party no 2 for replacement on the suggestion of the opposite party no 1 verbally. No documentation for this understanding. On the request of the complainant the opposite party no 2 had replaced the lap top and on approaching the opposite party no 1, he is not responding to refund the amount and that the complainant always ready to return the replaced new laptop on refund. Complainant vaguely states the opposite party no 2 had sent the replacement on temporary basis to facilitate opposite party no 1 for the refund as stop gap arrangement and hence accepted. The complainant had produced few email correspondences to substantiate his case.

2.    None of the correspondence or documents shows that he had requested the opposite party no 2 for refund, but shows he had requested for replacement and the complainant had specifically given his residential address for both pick up service for defective laptop and the delivery of replaced laptop. The complainant referred the document EX R3 as an evidence of refund for request and the understanding with the opposite party no 1. While going through the document it is not reflecting anywhere that the complainant is asking for refund with either of the parties. Telephonic conversation documented by the complainant which says we have discussed and agreed following you will arrange to pick up...to be sent to me thorough courier. This evening after discussed with you... they (the opposite party no 1 The Reliance digital) told me that they are happy to replace if you authorize your Mangalore apple service center for replacing it to them (instead of sending courier to me) they just need a letter from you to be sent to your Mangalore apple service center. This could help you to save courier cost on sending the new laptop to me, at the same time, I can get the replacement laptop immediately once you authorize (after receiving the old laptop). Appreciate if you can consider this request’”. The complainant also drew our attention towards end of the letter where it is mentioned as Primary reason: Refund/ monetary request. But none of these proves that the complainant made known to the opposite party no 2 of the oral arrangement made between opposite party no 1 and the complainant. Even if made known the opposite party no 2 is not bound as per warranty terms there is only provision for repair/replace but not refund and also there is a specific request from the complainant for replacement of lap top which had been met. Hence we are of the opinion that since the opposite party no 2 has replaced the defective lap top as requested there is no any deficiency of service from the opposite party no 2.

3.     As far as opposite party no 1 is concern the complainant not produced any corroborative evidence of the oral understanding between them with regard to refund of the lap top amount. The other important point which we consider is- Is there any promise by the Opposite party no 1 with regard to refund if the product found defective, before selling the product on which the complainant depended upon and bought the laptop. The complainant not produced any documents. More over if at all any promise of warranty of replacement or refund, this would be promised by the opposite party no 1 on behalf of the manufacturer but not on his own. Since the complainant had requested the opposite party no 2 for replacement and the same has been undertaken, this released the opposite party no 1 of the warranty liability towards customer. The complainant had accepted the replacement without resistance and with satisfaction there cannot be any deficiency with relate to product as such. It is also pertinent to note that if at all any oral agreement with regard to refund between parties after the sale and there is breach after product being replaced this forum is not competent authority to decide as it is not a breach as per Consumer Protection Act 1986. We are of the opinion that the complainant not proved the deficiency of service against either of the parties. Hence we answered the point no 2 in the negative and in the result the point no 3 also in the negative.

POINT NO 4: In the light of the above discussion and the adjudication of the points we pass the following

ORDER

     The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.

     Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.

     (Page No.1 to 8 Dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 18th January 2017)

MEMBER

 ( SMT. SHARADAMMA H.G)

        D.K. District Consumer Forum                   

      Additional Bench, Mangalore

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. Prashanth Padiyar

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

 Nil 

     Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Rw.1: Deepak Jain, Authorized signatory

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Ex.R1: Extract of Minutes of meetings (authorization letter)

Ex.R2: Letter by e-mail

Ex.R3: Letter by e-mail

Dated:  18.01.2017                                          MEMBER