Delhi

North

CC/317/2016

PARTH DHANANJAY TANDON - Complainant(s)

Versus

APPLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

ALPANA PANDEY

16 May 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No.: 317/2016

Sh. Parth Dhananjay Tandon,

S/o Avinash Tandon,

Tandon Bagicha,

Civil Ward No.8, Damoh (M.P.)

Presently Residing at

1/14, 2^nd Floor

(Backside) Roop Nagar, Delhi-110007                 …                    Complainant

                                                          Vs

Apple India Private Limited

19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C,

UB City, No.24,

Vittal Mallya Road,

Bangalore 560001                                               …           Opposite Party No.1

iWorld Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

UB-2 Bungalow Road, Kamla Nagar

New Delhi-110007                                              …           Opposite Party No.2

iQor Global Services India Pvt. Ltd.

Shop No. 107, First Floor Spark Mall,

Kamla Nagar, New Delhi-110007                        …         Opposite Party No         .3

ORDER

16/05/2023

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

1.      The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint in hand, are that the Complainant, who is a student, purchased Apple laptop for convenience in studies, from iWorld Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. UB-2 Bungalow Road, Kamla Nagar, New Delhi-110007/ OP-2 on 19.04.2015, as per following details:-

Model: MacBook Pro 13-inch

Dual-Core I5 2.5GHz/4GB/500GB/HD Graphics 4000/SD.

Serial No.: SC 1 mpdjtydty3.

Cost Rs. 55,000/-.

2.           In October 2015, (i.e. after 5-6 months of the date of purchase) when the Complainant had to go to attend the moot court competition at Goa BITS Pilani from his law college, the laptop stopped working. Thereafter, the Complainant visited the OP-2 shop from where the said laptop was purchased and the Complainant was suggested to approach to the service Centre situated at Kamla Nagar New Delhi i.e. iQOR Global Services India Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 107, First Floor Spark Mall, Kamla Nagar New Delhi-110007/OP-3 and accordingly, the Complainant visited the said service Centre on 19.10.2015 and the above said laptop was taken by the service Centre for diagnosis and further he was informed to come after one day and accordingly, when he visited the said service Centre next day i.e. on 20 October 2015, he was informed that Logic Board (MLB) of the said laptop was not working and since it was under warranty period,  the said laptop was handed over to the Complainant by the said service Centre after replacing the Logic Board (MLB), on 24.10.2015.

3.        Thereafter, in December 2015, the operating system of the said laptop started lagging and again the Complainant suffered a lot in his studies due to improper functioning of the said laptop. Thereafter, the Complainant again visited the above said service Centre with the said problem of improper functioning of his laptop and he was suggested by the service Centre for re-installment of the operating system. And accordingly, it was reinstalled by the said service Centre on 22 December 2015. Again in January 2016, the Clashell (Screen) of the said laptop got damaged automatically and when the Complainant visited the above said service Centre with the said problem, the Clashell (Screen) of the said laptop was replaced by the above said service Centre on 28.01.2016. After the above said replacements, the Battery of the said laptop got failed in July 2016, which was also replaced by the company. Thereafter, again the said laptop stopped working in September 2016 and when the Complainant took the laptop to the said service Centre with the said problem, he was informed by the OP-3 that the Logic Board (MLB) of the said laptop is to be replaced ( which was replaced earlier on 24-10-2015 and he has to go through paid service as the warranty period had expired. It has, therefore, been alleged by the Complainant that within a year, he had to visit several times to the service Centre and being a student of law, his studies have suffered a lot due to improper functioning of the said laptop despite the fact that he was having a laptop of Apple brand which claims of its cutting edge technology to their customers all over the world. The Complainant has further stated that as per the Apple One-Year Limited Warranty Summary which is explained in MacBook Pro (Important Product Information Guide) - "If you submit a valid claim under this warranty, Apple will either repair, replace, or refund your computer at its own discretion." The copy of the Apple One-Year Limited Warranty Summary containing the above mentioned Warranty clause is annexed with the complaint. He also requested to replace the said laptop with the new one, as he was suffering a lot due to improper functioning of the above said laptop but the Opposite Parties did not replace.

4.       Thereafter, the  Complainant sent a Legal Notice dated 17.10.2016 to the Opposite Parties, to refund the entire amount of Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand) with an interest of 50% or replace the above said Apple Laptop of the Complainant with the new one which is without any defects. In response, the Complainant received an email on 14.11.2016 from Sh. Rohit Sharma, Executive Relations EMEIA , Apple Distribution International Hollyhill Industrial Estate, Hollyhill Cork, Republic of Ireland. (Email: Apple is unable to meet your request for the replacement MacBook Pro. The offer outlined to repair your MacBook Pro S/N: C1MPDJTYDTY3 as a gesture of goodwill will remain open until November 18, 2016.”  The Complainant replied to the above said email on 16.11.2016 as under:-

“I would like to inform you that, since I have suffered a lot since the date of the purchase of Apple laptop, I am not ready for repair for any part of the said laptop again. As already stated in my legal notice, I would like to inform you again that, since the date of the purchase of the said laptop, within a year and half, logic board, screen and battery already replaced by your company. This shows that the functioning of the said laptop is not proper and there is some technical problem due to which again and again repair is required. It is therefore informed to you that I am not ready to accept your proposal for repair of the said laptop".

The copy of the mail dated 16.11.2016 sent by the Complainant is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A10”.

In response to this email of the Complainant, OP again through email dated 16.11.2016 replied as under:-

 "As discussed previously, I reviewed your case and provided you with Apple's response. We have offered to cover the cost of an out-of warranty repair of your product for free of charge, which you declined. We sincerely regret that you remain dissatisfied with our offer made to resolve the matter, this is not our intention. Should you change your mind and wish to proceed with our offer, kindly let me know by November 18, 2016 and I will make necessary arrangements for you. I remain available may you have any further queries or concerns in this matter".

5.       Being dissatisfied with the reply from OP, the Complainant has approached to this Commission for giving directions to:-

1. the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to either refund the entire amount of     

Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand) to the Complainant an interest of 50% or replace the disputed Apple laptop of the Complainant with the new one which is without any defect;

2. the Opposite Parties to compensate the Complainant in a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the mental torture, pain and agony,

 (c) the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.30,000/- as litigation charges, and

 (d)  Pass any other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts  

       and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.

6.       Accordingly, notices were issued to the OPs and in response to the Notice issued, the OPs have filed their replies which are discussed below:-

                                  Reply of Opposite Party No.1

7.       The OP-1 has submitted reply stating that the present complaint is malafide, devoid of merit and contradicts established principles of law. It is a common market principle and also an established position of law that consumers who willfully destroy, damage or negligently handle a product are not eligible to claim any relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. To be specific, when consumers cause damage to products by external factors which are not associated with the manufacturing/ inherent condition of the product and such which acts are in complete disregard to and in breach of the warranty policies of manufacturers (in the instant case "Warranty") cannot claim relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is stated that the provisions and terms of the Apple Warranty specifically exclude damaged products which is the case in the present matter. At this back drop it is pertinent to mention that Complainant purchased a MacBook Pro from OP-1, he had various issues with the Laptop and it was repaired and replaced by OP-1 and OP-3. However, he is demanding free service even after the Warranty period has expired. The OP-1 has further contended that as the Complainant couldn't operate the Laptop diligently, it was malfunctioning and it had a lot of problems. Nonetheless, OP-1 and OP-3 repaired/ replaced the device because of their goodwill and understanding the educational dependency of Complainant on the disputed device. OP-1 is liable to serve their customers, only restricted to the Warranty Policy and not beyond it. As they have always followed the norms of Warranty Policy for one year, they are not liable to serve the Complainant beyond such policy. It has further been stated that the averments made in Para 17 of the complaint are denied as false as the Representative of OP-1 offered an alternative way to the Complainant to resolve his problem. However, he refused to avail the same. He was well informed him that free service period of Warranty has expired and he can avail paid services to repair the Laptop but he refused to accept the offer. Hence, he cannot claim that he has no alternative way other than approaching this Hon'ble Forum. The Complainant is demanding free services even after enjoying the same till one year. OP-1 provides only one year of free services. Hence, he is not liable to seek any relief and or replacement from OP-1. OP-1 provides one year Warranty to all their customers who comply with the policies mentioned in the Warranty. The National State Commission in M/s Tata Motors Ltd. Versus Mrs. Surjit Karu & Others has held that adherence to the instructions contained in the warranty manual is pre-requisite for admission of case of manufacturing defect.  Further, the State Consumer Forum Tamil Nadu in N.R. Jayachandran Versus FORD India Limited had held that the Owners instructions manual should be followed. A clear perusal of these authorities establish the fact that the Complainant did not follow the instructions mentioned in the Warranty, thus the OP-1 is not obligated to service/replace her iPhone as per the Warranty policy.  The OP-1 has referred the Apple One-year Limited Warranty Summary which is explained in MacBook Pro (Important Product Information Guide) stating that  "If you submit a valid claim under this warranty, Apple will either repair, replace or refund your computer at its own discretion." The original copy of the Apple One-Year Limited Warranty Summary containing the above mentioned Warranty clause is attached and marked as Exhibit-CW/7.

Reply of the OP No.2

8.       The Opposite Party No.2, namely I-World Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the business of retail of information technology related products and services through its stores, from where it undertakes the sale of products and services of various brands. Amongst others, the Opposite Party No.2 is also a reseller of Apple products including inter-alia i-Mac, MacBook, i-Pad, iPhone and iPod.  While undertaking the sale of Apple products, the Opposite Party No.2 is bound by the the principles and guidelines as provided to it by 'APPLE'. OP-2 has also requested for deletion from the array of parties to the above-mentioned complaint, for reasons as more specifically set out hereinafter.

9.       The Opposite Party No.3 did not appear despite service and therefore, was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 09-01-2018.

10.     Accordingly, the complaint has been examined in view of the facts of the case and averments/documents/Evidence put forth by the complainant & OPs and it has been observed that:-

(a)      It is not disputed that the laptop in question was given to the service Centre of the OP-1 for removal of the defects on 20.10.2015, 22.12.2015 and 28.01.2016 within the warranty period and the defects were removed. Thereafter, twice within 5 months after expiry of warranty period. On  6^th September, 2016, the defects in the logic board (MLB)  of the laptop was again diagnosed by the service Centre of OP-1, though this part was earlier replaced on 24.10.2015 by the OP service Centre which proves that the laptop in question was having multiple defects and was liable to be replaced by the OP-1 who deliberately escaped from this responsibility under the garb of “Apple One-year Limited Warranty Summary” explained in MacBook Pro (Important Product Information Guide) which provides that  "If you submit a valid claim under this warranty, Apple will either repair, replace or refund your computer at its own discretion."  Since the Complainant has submitted the laptop thrice before the OPs service Centre within the warranty period, he has submitted the valid claim under the warranty for replacement.

(b)     The OP-1 in his reply has given defence against the demands of the Complainant for free service even after expiry of the warranty period whereas the Complainant has not demanded free service after the expiry of the warranty from the OP instead he has demanded of the replacement of Laptop which has not been carried out by the OP under the garb of under the garb of “Apple One-year Limited Warranty Summary” as discussed in the para (a) above. Thereafter, he has filed the complaint before this Commission seeking refund of the entire amount with interest or replacement of the defective laptop.

(c)      The OP-1 has contended that the Complainant could not operate the laptop diligently and therefore, it was mal-functioning and had lot of problems but the OPs could not produce any evidence on record that it was informed to the Complainant that he is not operating the laptop diligently as per the instructions contained in the warranty manual. It is not disputed that the defective laptop was brought to the OP service Centre thrice within the warranty period and once after the warranty period and e-mails were also exchanged between the Complainant & the OP but the OP never conveyed to the Complainant that about improper & rough handling of the laptop which proves that this defense is afterthought of OP-1 to counter the allegations of the Complainant.

 11.    In view of the above observations, we are of the considered view that the complainant has suffered directly due to deficient service of the OP-1 (Apple India Private Limited) in terms of the deficiency defined in the Act which includes  any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained in relation to any service and includes any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer. However, no deficiency in service has been observed on the part of OP-2 &OP-3.

12.        Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct the OP-1 (Apple India Private Limited) to refund Rs.55000/- (Rupees Fifty five Thousand only) within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 20-12-2016 (date of filing of complaint) till the date of the payment. Besides, the OP-1 is also directed to pay Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation to the Complainant, who was a student at the relevant time, for the mental pain, agony and harassment. It is clarified that if the abovesaid amount is not paid by the OP-1 to the Complainant within the period as directed above, the OP shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days period.

Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                   HARPREET KAUR CHARYA

                                              Member                                                                     Member

                                                    DCDRC-1 (North)                                                 DCDRC-1 (North)

          DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

                                                                                                        President       

                                                                                                DCDRC-1 (North)