Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/380

Gurpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple India Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil Goel Adv.

07 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 380 of 12.06.2015

Date of Decision            :   07.07.2017

 

Gurpreet Singh son of Surinder Singh, resident of House No.346, Canal Colony, Village Norang Ke Sayal, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.The Manager, Customer Support, Apple India Pvt. Ltd., 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower (“C”) UB City, No.24, Vittal Malya Road, Bangalore-560001, Karnataka.

2.Reliance Retail Limited, Shop No.15, 16, Lower Ground Floor, West End Mall, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its authorized signatory. 

Opposite parties

 

 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.Sunil Goel, Advocate

For OP1                         :         Sh.Vipin Saggar, Advocate 

For OP2                         :         Sh.Sahil Sharma, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant purchased one Apple make Laptop from OP2 bearing product Sr. No.885909882205 for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- vide invoice dated 9.7.2014. Op2 is the retail counter for selling the Apple laptop under the supervision of OP1. After purchase of said laptop, the same was used by the complainant, but after few months, the same created problem like that of automatic hang down, due to software problem. On advice of OPs, the software was got replaced from them. Despite that replacement, problem was not solved. Adapter pin was struck inside the laptop, due to which, the same used to become hot during process of charging. Laptop was shown to the service centre at the address of OP2 and job cards were prepared in that respect by mentioning the problem therein. However, the laptop was returned without solving the problem mentioned in the job cards. Complainant has suffered financial loss, mental harassment and agony due to non-resolving of problem and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, prayer made for directing them to replace the laptop with new one or to refund the price of the same with interest. Compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- more claimed.

2.                In written reply submitted by OP1, it is claimed that laptops sold in India by OP1 through their authorized dealers/retailers are known for their cutting edge technology and utmost customer satisfaction. These products undergo strict quality test for ensuring maintenance of high standard thereof. The allegations levelled in the complaint alleged to be misleading and those are denied by claiming that complaint is filed with malafide intention. Consumers who willfully destroy or negligently handles the product for causing damage to the same by external factors are not entitled to any relief because the defects arising from mis-handling are not associated with manufacturing or inherent condition of the product. Problem in the laptop was in its Magsafe charging adapter, which was replaced by OP2 with new adapter. No other defects were detected in the laptop and allegations in the complaint to the contrary are refuted. On report of complaint regarding the product, the same is addressed to Apple authorized service provider (hereinafter in short referred as ‘AASP’). The said AASP inspects the product, diagnose the issues, record its observations and then resolves the issues. Complainant informed as if pin was stuck in the adapter socket and except that there was no other issue reported regarding laptop. Mention of this problem was made in the job sheet. Despite identifying and rectifying the issue, the complainant denied the same and as such, he is alleged to be guilty of suppression of material facts. Allegations levelled in the complaint are alleged to be concocted one because they are designed just for framing a case. Liability of the manufacturer arose only with respect to the inherent defect in the product. Admittedly, the laptop in question was purchased from OP2 through invoice. Main issue which the complainant faced was to the effect that he was unable to install the Windows 7 on his MacBook. MacBook is only designed to install verified authentic software as is approved by the developer of that software. Complainant was directed to install the original legal Windows 7 software in his laptop. It is denied that despite replacement of the software, the problem continued. However, it is admitted that adopter pin was stuck inside the laptop charging port, but OP2 replaced the adapter, regarding which mention specific made in the job sheet No.1577. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by claiming that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP1.

3.                In separate written reply submitted by OP2, it is claimed that the customers visiting the store are apprised/well informed of the features of the product on display along with prices. OP2 is not involved in the manufacturing process of instrument at any stage and as such, it is not liable for the manufacturing defect in the instrument, if any. OP2 only educates its customers about the features and categories of the product by providing literature/catalogue thereof as supplied by the manufacturer. Liability of OP2 does not extend at any rate after sale service. So, a false and frivolous complaint filed, which alleged to be not maintainable against OP2, particularly when no cause of action has arisen against it. OP2 is just a retailer of various electronic goods including Apple products. OP2 cannot replace the Apple laptop purchased by the complainant because services of the manufactured product to be provided as per the terms and conditions of the product by the manufacturer only. On report of problem by the complainant, all possible steps were taken by OP2 for resolving the same. On reporting of heating problem, the complainant was requested to bring the device for verification of the nature of complaint, so as to see the prospect of solving the problem, however, the complainant refused to bring the same. Problem of charger pin happened due to negligent use of the product by the complainant, but even then the same was fixed. Computer devices software are required to be updated from time to time. When the complainant reported about heating problem on phone, then he was required to show the device, but the complainant refused to bring the same and that is why, job card was not prepared regarding this problem. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C7 and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Priyesh Poovanna, Country Legal Counsel of OP1 concern along with document Ex.R1 and then closed evidence.

6.                Counsel for OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA2 of Sh.Vijay Kumar, Department Manager of OP2 and then closed the evidence.

7.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments by counsel for parties addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

8.                It is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that laptop in question by paying hefty amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was purchased and company claims itself to be a company of repute, but despite that repair of the laptop has not been done and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops, due to which, they are liable to replace the laptop in question with new one or to refund the price of the same. Further, it is contended by counsel for complainant that complainant visited OP2 on 19.8.2014, 5.12.2014 and got the job sheets Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 issued by mentioning the problems, but despite that problems are not resolved and that is why legal notice Ex.C5 has to be got served through counsel through postal receipts Ex.C6 and Ex.C7. Reply to that legal notice not sent by Ops and as such, it is vehemently contended that in view of persistent problems in the laptop, the laptop has remained unused by the complainant. However, these submissions advanced by counsel for complainant  vehemently controverted by counsel for OP1 by contending that only problem in the adapter pin was resolved by replacement of the adapter. Earlier problem of software even was resolved and as such, it is contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Satisfaction note even was recorded by the complainant on the job sheets and as such, it is contended that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands because even after redressal of problems, this complaint filed by serving legal notice. Sh.Sahil Sharma, Advocate representing OP2 vehemently contends that OP2 is not involved in the manufacturing process at all, but is just a seller and as such, liability of OP2 is not there, particularly when the problems have already been resolved. The product in question is manufactured by Apple Company of USA and as such, prayer made for dismissal of complaint. After considering the pros and cons of rival contention of counsel for the parties and after going through the record and pleadings, it is made out that the complainant unable to prove qua providing of deficient services by Ops to him because the reported problems stood resolved through endorsement on the job sheets Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 itself and thereafter, the complainant received the laptop by recording satisfaction note. Laptop in question was purchased vide invoice Ex.C1 by paying price of Rs.1,80,000/- and company for showing its concern regarding customer satisfaction issued note Ex.C2. Even if that be the position, despite that the contents of job sheet Ex.C3 of date 19.8.2014 establishes that problem in the laptop reported at that time was of some software and that is why symptoms mentioned therein were of requirement of MAC for updating the Windows 7. That MAC was done is a fact recorded in the column of Action taken/repair done in the job sheet Ex.C3. Signatures of complainant are there on satisfaction note recorded on foot of Ex.C3. Meaning of MAC not known to the appearing counsel for the parties, but the same collected through internet search, print of which extracted and is made a part of this file. As per that Internet information, MAC means Media Access Control. As per that internet information, every network device or interface, such as laptop’s Wi-Fi adapter, has a unique hardware ID called the MAC or media access control. One can find the MAC address for his network card in Windows 10 in just a couple of steps. So, certainly submissions advanced by counsel for OP1 has force that software problem, owing to non finding of MAC was resolved by doing MAC. It is also mentioned in para no.4 of the complaint itself that problems surfacing in laptop were recorded in the prepared job cards.    In view of these assertions made in the complaint specifically, it has to be held by keeping in view the contents of Ex.C3, the job card of 19.8.2014 that problem of software was resolved on that day itself by doing MAC.

9.                Further, problem of adapter pin being stuck inside was reported on 5.12.2014 through job sheet Ex.C4 and the said problem could not be resolved and that is why, adapter 85W Magsafe was replaced with new one as per report in the column spares replaced recorded in Ex.C4. Signatures of the complainant are there on satisfaction note Ex.C4. As per that satisfaction note, the complainant claimed as if he is satisfied with the performance of the product and he had received the product and all its accessories. In view of contents of Ex.C4, it is obvious that problem of adapter owing to striking of pin inside even was resolved and complainant received back the same after resolving the same. Problem of hang down claimed through complaint and notice Ex.C5 as such, stood resolved by updating the software, but the problem of adapter pin striking inside was removed by replacement of the adapter. Except these two problems, no other problem mentioned in the complaint or in the notice Ex.C5 and if that be the position, then certainly due services were provided to the complainant by Ops. Being so, deficiency in service on the part of Ops is not there.

10.              Benefit from ratio of cases titled as Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. A.S.Industries and another-2007(3)CPJ-319(Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) and of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jatindera Mittal and others-2011(2)CPJ-196(Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) can’t be gained by the counsel for complainant because in both reported cases, it was found that product concerned did not function properly even after a day of its purchase or that problem concerned was not resolved, despite the fact that the product concerned was not functioning properly. It was in these circumstances that refund of price of the product or replacement of the same ordered in the reported cases. That is not the position in the case before us at all because here two problems reported in the complaint as well as in the notice were resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant and thereafter, complainant received the laptop after recording satisfaction note. No report of expert produced to show that there is manufacturing defect in the laptop in question, despite the fact that onus of proving the manufacturing defect is on the complainant because of the circumstances that produced evidence establishes as if the pointed defects in the job sheets were duly removed. As it is not a case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops or of adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of Ops and as such, complaint merits dismissal.

11.              Therefore, as a sequel to the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

12.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                     (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                           President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:07.07.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.