Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/256/2017

Aniket Aggarwal, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple India Pvt Limited, - Opp.Party(s)

27 Aug 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 14.02.2017

                                                      Disposed on: 27.08.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027        

 

CC.No.256/2017

DATED THIS THE 27^th AUGUST OF 2018

 

PRESENT

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

	Complainant/s	V/s	Opposite party/s
	Aniket Aggarwal, S/o Sanjay Aggarwal D201, Salarpuria Melody Apartment, Nayandahalli Quarters, Bangalore-39   In person	1	The CEO Apple India Private Limited., 11th Floor, Concorde Tower, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001.   By.Adv.Amar Singh
		2	The Manager, AMPLE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., Imagine Store: Apple Premium Reseller, #3  Ground Floor, Garuda Mall, Magrath Road, Bengaluru-25. Imagine Store: Forum Mall.   By.Adv.H.N.Narendra Dev

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

1.       The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties directing to refund the entire amount of the machine along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of purchase, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensate towards damages for the physical and mental harassment, agony, discomfort, to pay Rs.5,000/- as the amount of accessories purchased by the Complainant which can be used with the laptop only.

 

2.       The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that the Complainant is an individual and is consumer of the Opposite Party Apple India Pvt. Ltd., The Opposite Party is the manufacturer of the hardware and the software provided to the customer and the company under the Companies Act, 1956. The Complainant submits that he bought a 12 inch Mac Book 2016 (Sl.No.C02RQ0GQGTHT) from the Imgine store in Garuda Mall, vide Taxi Invoice having global SV ID 69646 Global RCT ID 0, Global JV ID 69647, Global INV ID 31555 & Global DCR ID 23121 dt.27.5.2016 having full replacement warranty of 1 year with an ambition to complete his education at Bangalore thinking Mac Book to be an asset as generosity from the hard earned money of his father. At the time of purchase of the Mac Book other premium brands were also available in the market, but for its uniqueness, portability, Apple Company’s own software & hardware used in manufacturing of the machine offered by the company and because of the assurance of their officials for future trouble-free service and warranty offered by the company, he opted for the Mac Book purchased by him for the value addition to his studies. After the purchase and usage of the machine, he started facing problem with keypad, the Mac Book was getting heated and the display LCD cracked on its own which appears to be spontaneous glass breakage due to his defective item at the time of purchase and on 16.9.2016 suddenly he started facing problem with the display on the Mac Book and the keyboard. There was one white line appeared internally from left side corner on the display. He immediately called apple helpline number and they told that this problem is coming in MacBook and in case is no sign of drop or dents on Mac Book. They will replace it under warranty. On the next day, he went to service centre and showed them the MacBook and just by looking at it for 20 seconds, they told him that they cannot cover it under warranty as this product is damaged. They asked him to pay Rs.1,250/- for service charge to putting MacBook under diagnostics and without even analyzing it properly they claimed it to be out of warranty and asked for Rs.48,000/- for screen replacement. Hearing this, he was shocked as his MacBook did not have even a single scratch and is as new as it was at the time of purchase. Since the machine was still under warranty and the engineers of the service centre without even properly analyzing the product and on software basis being a hardware issue denied him replacement for the product under warranty. To the shock and dismay, argued with the engineers as the product was under warranty that how they can deny the warranty without even properly analyzing the product, then the engineer over there told him that even if there are some chances of his MacBook to be replaced under warranty, he won’t let that happen. Thereafter, he contacted apple support who assured him that they will provide with best possible solution asked him to leave MacBook at service centre and as guided by Apple Senior Advisor and he left the MacBook at service centre. After 10 days, apple senior advisor told him that MacBook can’t be covered under warranty as the people at service centre have given their report so the MacBook cannot be replaced or screen cannot be replaced. He talked to manager who showed his helplessness by saying that because his hands are tied and company terms and conditions does not cover damage. He asked the manager that there is not even a single scratch or dent on his MacBook then why apple service centre is asking for money for replacement under warranty. Thereafter broken line stopped showing and around it had black lines around the line appearing earlier. The mails exchanged by the service centre engineers & officials of Apple Company also admitted that there is white line on the display and the MacBook is having “No dents no scratches no damage” Even finding the case in genuine and suitable for the replacement of display, the engineers & official of the company refused to provide the service for which Apple is known world over and himself is being harassed, humiliated and his dignity and serenity was put under scrutiny without any fault of his part. He even visited global Services India Pvt.Ltd., at galaxy mall, Ambala City with his MacBook and the MacBook was shown to them and in their report given by them, the MacBook have no external damage on machine, no dents and scratches, however the service centre at Bangalore flatly refused to provide the services. The machine did not function properly. Every time whenever the machine was used, some problem or the other was being faced by him as it was defective from the start repeated calls and requests, e-mails & personal visits by him were made to get the problem rectified. Many time he had to run after service centre for redressal of his grievance. Ultimately the officials from apple said to rectify the defect but nothing was done. He after spending huge amount on this product has not only being harassed by the officials of the company but being a student had wasted his precious time and energy without any result which has forced met to send this legal notice to company. Apple products are being sold because of the tall claims of trouble free service. In the garb of these assurances, they are cheating the innocent people. They fleecing the customers and selling the product without bothering about the proper service and maintenance. The Complainant submits that he purchased the machine for a consideration from the company and as per the warranty, the company were to provide service & replacement of parts of machine to him from the date of the purchase of the machine due to manufacturing defect. As per the terms and conditions of the sale and warranty, the company was unable to give proper service to him and the machine with its defective display and keyboard is lying idle with him from several months. It was having inherent manufacturing defect in it and the defect occurred during the period of warranty not only with him but with other people also with apple laptops and was required to be replaced, but the same has not been replaced inspite of complaints and reminders thereafter. Now he has got no faith in the product and hence claims for the refund of the entire amount of the machine.  Because of the inherent manufacturing defect to run the machine besides company deficient necessary after sale services for proper functioning of the machine, he has not been able to use the costly machine, which is lying idle for many days without it being used properly, defeating the purpose of him to increase the efficiency and value addition to his educational requirements. So many request and personal reminder to get the defects rectified and replaced have failed to move the company into action after so many calls for 4-5 hours daily for several months after the defect. He has suffered mental pain, agony, harassment, humiliation at the hands of people thinking to be super boss working/associated with company’s highly esteemed organization. Such type of motivated allegations against an innocent student using such electronic gazettes from the people of a company like heap disgrace on them as well as on the organization they work for with impunity. Nothing is more damaging then the feeling of helplessness. Till the date of filing the case, he has sent two notice to apple to replace his product but company denied and asking for Rs.48000/- and blaming him for doing so as he has applied pressure on the screen but that is not the case as the pressure damage is not what the defect looks like on his laptop. The company is just telling showing him terms and conditions but not ready to admit that this is manufacturing defect. He has atleast contacted apple support for more than 50 hours on call but they just make him feel helpless and says that the case is genuine but they cannot help him as their hands are tied. Many people from apple got their products replaced due to same defect. Hence, the Complainant submits to allow the complaint.        

 

3.       After receipt of the notice, the Opposite Parties did appear and filed separate version denying the claim of the Complainant. The sum and substance of the version filed by the OP-1 is that the said MacBook 2016 are sold in India by the OP-1 through their authorized dealers/resellers are known for their cutting-edge technology and utmost customer satisfaction. Due to the said attributes, the MacBook 2016 is one of largest selling devices in the world and India. The said MacBook 2016 undergoes strict quality tests to ensure that the said products maintain high standards to ensure that they do not fail to meet industry standards. Further, the 1^st Opposite Party is a world-renowned market and innovation leader and has been the flag bearer of technological advancements in the telecommunication devices, computing and communications space. The 1^st Opposite Party has specifically raising the objections with regard to the maintainability of the complaint stating that the complaint is malafide, devoid of merits and contradicts established principles of law. The instant complaint has been devised to mislead the Forum. 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 incomplete disregard to and in breach of the warranty policies of manufacturers (in the instant case “Warranty”) cannot claim relief under the CP Act.  Further, it is stated that the provisions and terms of the Apple Warranty specifically exclude damaged products which is the case in the present matter. The 1^st Opposite Party also specifically stated that Apple Authorized Service Provider (AASP) inspected the disputed MacBook 2016 and found that the device was damaged and had cracks on the left side of the screen.  Such scratches occur due to excessive pressure or physical damage and such damages are not covered under the warranty policy offered by the 1^st Opposite Party. Hence, the Complainant has deliberately concealed these facts to attain undeserving benefits from the 1^st Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has also specifically stated its terms and conditions with regard to the warranty is found at Para-3 of the version which read thus:

“This warranty does not apply: (a) to consumable parts, such as batteries or protective coatings that are designed to diminish over time, unless failure has occurred due to a defect in materials or workmanship (b) to cosmetic damage, including but not limited to scratches, dents and broken plastic on ports unless failure has occurred due to a defect in materials or workmanship (c) to damage caused by use with a third party component or product that does not meet the Apple Product’s specifications (Apple Product specifications are available at www.apple.com under the technical specifications for each product and also available in stores) (d) to damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse, fire, earthquake or other external cause; (e) to damage caused by operating the Apple Product outside Apple’s published guidelines (f) to damage caused by service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or an Apple Authorized service Provider (AASP) (g) to an Apple product that has been modified to alter functionality or capability without the written permission of apple (h) to defects caused by normal wear and tear or otherwise due to the normal aging of the Apple product (i) if any serial number has been removed or defaced from the Apple Product or (j) if apple receives information from relevant public authorities that the product has been stolen or if you are unable to deactivate passcode-enabled or other security measures designed to prevent unauthorized access to the Apple Product, and you cannot prove in any way that you are the authorized user of the product (eg. By presenting proof of purchase)”

 

Upon perusing through the above extract, the 1^st Opposite Party stated that it is clearly understandable that the Complainant damaged his MacBook 2016  himself, thus he is not liable to claim benefits under the same the warrant provisions, as the Complainant failed to comply with the warranty provisions, Complainant could not address his concerns with 1^st Opposite Party. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Further, the 1^st Opposite Party has specifically stated that the Complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands. The Complainant’s suppression and concealment is evident from the fact that he himself damaged his MacBook 2016 and he is solely attributable to his own actions which are in breach of the terms of the Apple Warranty. The Opposite Party further submits that the onus to prove allegations lie on the Complainant and hence, the Complainant may be directed to furnish and prove his allegations in relation to the complaint, particularly in view of the admission on part of the Complainant brought on record by the 1^st Opposite Party which ex-facie squarely contradict the allegations of the Complainant. Further, stated that the Complainant is well aware that the damage to the Complainant’s MacBook 2016 occurred squarely as a result of the Complainant’s own negligence/fault and further, that the Complainant is well aware equally that such acts in effect breach the terms of the apple warranty. Thereby the Opposite Party is not liable for and required to compensate the Complainant for such damage to the Complainant’s MacBook 2016. Further submits that liability of a manufacturer arises only and only when there is inherent defect in the product when the said product was manufactured (i.e. before the product was sold to the Complainant) and it is a settled position of law that manufacturer cannot be made liable and until it is proved by adducing expert evidence that there was any manufacturing defect and the present case is not related to any manufacturing defect with the farthest stretch of imagination. The 1^st Opposite Party further denied the parawise contents of the complaint. Further submits that it is needless to say that the Complainant failed to comply with the warranty provision thus, the Complainant is not liable to claim any relief/compensation/grant relying on the decision of the National State Commission in M/s Tata Motors Ltd., V/s Mrs. Surjit Kaur & 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 V/s Ford India Ltd., had held that the owners instruction manual should be followed. The Supreme Court of India in C.N.Anantharam V. Fiat India Ltd., and Ors that as the consumer failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the product and he is not liable to claim compensation for the same. The State Consumer Forum, Punjab in Lagger Industries Ltd., Vs. Diamler Chrysler India Pvt.Ltd., it was held that in absence of any manufacturing defects consumer cannot claim benefits/relief. A clear perusal of these authorities establish the fact that the Complainant did not follow the instructions mentioned in the warranty, thus the Opposite Party-1 is not obligated to service/replace her iPhone as per the warranty policy. On these grounds and other grounds pray for dismissal of the complaint.

 

          4.       The 2^nd Opposite Party filed its version. The contentions taken by the 2^nd Opposite Party are also similar to that of the 1^st Opposite Party. Additional grounds taken by the 2^nd Opposite Party is that there is no any manufacturing defect. The Opposite Party No.2 further submits that for the purpose of carrying out the service for diagnosis and inspection of the laptop, the Opposite Party informed the Complainant that a sum of Rs.1,250/- would be chargeable towards diagnosis fee, which the Complainant agreed to pay without any demur. Further submits that the Complainant knowing fully well subscribed his signature on the Ex-P2 which is the delivery challan and also part of the Ex-P1 which is the quotation for the repair of the laptop for Rs.47,847/-. Further submits that there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party since it is only the seller of the said MacBook 2016. On these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5. The Complainant to substantiate his case, filed his affidavit evidence and got marked as Ex-P1 to P8. The Opposite Parties have filed affidavit evidence and got marked as Ex-B1 to B3 (a & b). The Complainant as well as the Opposite Parties has filed their written arguments. Heard both sides.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

 

6. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1) Whether the Complainant proves the deficiency in service on

              the part of the OPs, if so, whether he is entitled for the relief

              sought for?

          2) What Order?

                  

 

7.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point No.1: Negative

Point No.2: As per the final order for the following

REASONS

 

8. POINT NO.1 :   We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version of the Opposite Parties. The undisputed facts which reveal from the pleadings of the parties to the lis goes to show that the Complainant has purchased the said MacBook 2016 from the 2^nd Opposite Party for an amount of Rs.1,00,486/- which can be seen ongoing through the tax invoice as per Ex-P1. It is also not in dispute that the Complainant has handed over the said MacBook 2016 to the 2^nd Opposite Party for repairs which can be seen ongoing through the delivery challan marked as Ex-P2 for which the 2^nd Opposite Party has given the quotation for the screen replacement. Ongoing through the contents of the quotation which is part of Ex-P1 for the repair and also the delivery challan marked as Ex-P2.   

 

9.       The say of the Complainant is that the said MacBook is under the warranty and cracks were developed on it. Hence, it is a manufacturing defect. Accordingly, he is entitled for the entire amount of the MacBook along with interest and also compensation with cost of litigation.

 

10.     The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 have specifically stated that the MacBook 2016 was one of largest selling devices in the world and India. The said MacBook 2016 undergoes strict quality tests to ensure that the said products maintain high standards to ensure that they do not fail to meet industry standards. Further, they have taken the contention that the 1^st Opposite Party is a world-renowned market and innovation leader and has been the flag bearer of technological advancements in the telecommunication devices, computing and communications space. This fact is not specifically denied by the Complainant.

 

11.     Further, the Opposite Parties has specifically taken the contention stating that such scratches/cracks found on the said MacBook occurred due to excessive pressure or physical damage and such damages are not covered under the warranty policy offered by the 1^st Opposite Party. In this context, the Opposite Party has placed reliance on the contents of the warranty as stated in Para-3 of the version filed by the 1^st Opposite Party which we have already extracted in Para (3) of this Order. Since the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 have specifically taken the contention that the said cracks and scratches are due to the excessive pressure or physical damage, we place reliance on the contents of the complaint filed by the Complainant wherein the Complainant never whispered a single word with regard to the contents of Ex-P2 which is delivery challan wherein the diagnosis details stated as “ This machine is not cover under warranty due to damage on display and point empact on left side corner. Machine return to the customer without repair” Further submits that the physical status stated as “no external damage on machine, no dents and scratches”. When such being the fact, the alleged manufacturing defect as alleged by the Complainant is to be proved by adducing expert evidence. In the instant case, there is no any expert report with regard to the alleged manufacturing defect. Under such circumstances, self-serving version of the Complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the said laptop has no legs to stand in the light of the decision reported in II (2017) CPJ 462 (NC) in the case of Bhagwan Singh Sekhawat V/s R.K.Photostate & Communication & Ors wherein it is held as under:

Consumer Protect Act, 1986-Sections 2 (1)(f), 14 (1)(d), 21(b)-Mobile set-Manufacturing defect-Warranty period- Inability to rectify- Deficiency in service alleged-District Forum dismissed complaint-State Commission dismissed appeal-Hence revision-Complainant has not impleaded manufacturer as OP-complaint not maintainable without impleading manufacturer-No expert opinion regarding defects in mobile set has been placed by Complainant on record-Problems can arise while regular use of mobile and as ringer problem arose after almost 11 months, it cannot be said that there was any manufacturing defect.

Hence, we come to the conclusion that the complaint filed by the Complainant is devoid of any merits and liable to be dismissed holding that there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, this point is answered in the negative.

 

12.     POINT NO.2: In the result, we pass the following:

 

ORDER

 

The Complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed devoid of any merits.

Looking to the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open Forum on 27^th August 2018).

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)     PRESIDENT

 

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Aniket Aggarwal., who being the complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-P1	Tax invoice
Ex-P2	Delivery challan
Ex-P3	Phone calls to company
Ex-P4	Legal notice
Ex-P5	Registered A.D
Ex-P6	Reply from company
Ex-P7	Other customers with same problem
Ex-P8	Photo

 

 

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

Priyesh Poovanna, Authorized Signatory who being OP-1 was examined.

Gomathi Raju, Authorized Signatory also filed affidavit evidence.

Ex-B1	Resolution
Ex-B2	Warranty provisions/terms
Ex-B3 (a & b)	Photographs of the device,

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)       MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)    PRESIDENT