Delhi

East Delhi

CC/424/2017

SHUBHAM AGGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

APPLE INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

24 Apr 2019

ORDER

                   DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.        424 / 2017

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  30/10/2017

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 24/04/2019

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          26/04/2019 

                                                                                                       

 

In matter of

Mr. Shubham Agarwal  

R/o Flat no. 8 Jai Apartment

I P Extn. Patpargunj Delhi 110092….……..…………………..….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1-M/s Apple India Pvt Ltd

19^th Floor Concord Tower C

UB City no. 24 Vithal Mallya Road

Bangaluru 560001

 

2-Future World Retail india Pvt Ltd

G-54 Radial Road No. 2

Connaught Place New Delhi 110001

 

3- Future World Retail india Pvt Ltd

6 Bharti Artist Colony,

GF, Preet Vihar, Delhi 110092……………………...………….……Opponents

 

Complainant ……………..……………………….……….In Person 

Opponent 1 Advocate…………………………………..Mr Amit Kumar & others  

Opponent 2&3……………………………………………..Mr Dhruv Gupta    

 

Quorum                                                                  Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                                                                                 Dr P N Tiwari              Member                                                                                                   

                                                                                 Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                   

Complainant purchased  Apple Macbook Air Laptop having SN C02NH7ZLG086 from OP3/seller of product of OP1 on 29/09/2014 for sum of Rs 87817/- (Ex CW1/1). It was stated that said laptop started developing problems like auto shutdown and excess heating, so complainant lodged complaint with OP2/service centre in August 2015, but no job sheet was given so complaint to OP1 through email in Sept 2015 (Ex CW1/2). No problem was rectified and in the mean time the standard warranty was about to expire so paid Rs 18,000/- for extending for two years warranty from 26/11/2015 to 28/11/2017 under AppleCare Protection Plan (Ex CW1/3). In Feb 2016 laptop again developed problem, so contacted OP1 for upgrading software, service engineer helped online, but could not do so. It was told online by service engineer of OP1 to contact service centre/OP2 and handed over Laptop to OP2 in July 2016 who after inspection told that there was no problem and laptop was returned (Ex CW1/4).   

It was stated that in June 2017, the said laptop got shut down automatically, so contacted OP2 who assured to replace logic board and fix display (Ex CW1/5), but complainant stressed for replacement of laptop. Since lot of time lapsed by OP2 not replacing the board or replacing with new laptop so sent a legal notice to OP1&2 after lodging complaint on customer care with complaint no. 318714 (Ex CW1/6). Even after visiting personally number of times, he did not get his laptop replaced or board was changed. As complainant did not get the assured services by OP2, who was an authorized service centre of OP1, felt deficiency in service on the part of OP2. Hence, filed this complaint and claimed replacement with a new laptop with compensation or refund of cost of laptop Rs 87,817/- with 18% interest and Rs 2 lacs compensation for mental harassment with Rs 10 lacs as work loss. He also claimed litigation charges Rs 6000/-. 

OP1/manufacturer submitted objections/written statement and denied all the allegations of complainant as totally wrong and false. It was stated that OP1 were a well known world vide reputed company dealing in good quality goods in electronic and the same laptop was purchased from OP3/Future World Retail India Pvt Ltd. on 29/11/2014 and complainant had purchased another good as Sunnhieser Headphone for Rs 917/- which had also been claimed for replacement as a whole under bill of Rs 87,817/-, but problem occurred on 22/06/2017 vide service report no. 20305 problem reported were as “Not powering on, white SPO coming in display and heating issue intermittently” by complainant, but final cause could not be detected, but after some repair. It was stated that as his laptop was under two years extended warranty from 29/11/2015 to 28/11/2017 from Applecare Protection with terms and conditions, so complainant could also approach them.

It was stated that the problem was attributed by negligent misuse by the complainant and as per warranty terms, damages were not covered (Ex OPW1/1) and service report dated 22/06/2017 clearly shows the same (Ex OPW1/2).

The laptop was in extended warranty vide service report dated 22/06/2017, the damaged part was not under warranty, so complainant was asked to pay the cost of the damaged part, but complainant refused to pay and stressed for replacing with new one laptop. Thereafter he never visited OP2. There was no manufacturing defect ever reported by their authorised service centre, so allegation of defective laptop sold by OP3 does not sustain. It was also submitted that OP1 always assisted complainant whenever complaint was lodged pertaining to laptop which was promptly attended by their service and technical engineers.  Thus OP1 was not liable for any deficiency in services or any manufacturing defect in his laptop.

OP 2&3, admitted that the said laptop was purchased from OP3 and was brought to their authorised service centre/OP2 as per their service report dated 22/06/2017. At that time the standard warranty had expired and complainant had taken extended warranty of two years from 29/11/2015 to 28/11/2017 vide agreement no. A3TZF2652433E3G as per AppleCare Protection Certificate with terms and conditions, but complainant denied paying for damaged part which was not under extended warranty. It was also stated that Applecare Protection was not made as a necessary party, but he stressed for replacement with new version of laptop, which was denied by the manufacturer/OP1 as damaged part could had been replaced under extended warranty terms and conditions. It was also stated that the service engineer reported damage to some part of logic board and the same could had been replaced after paying cost of damaged part, but complainant did not agree for replacement of part, but insisted for total replacement with a new laptop which was not the policy of OP1, so all allegations of complainant were totally wrong and baseless.

 

Complainant submitted his rejoinder to all three OPs written statements and denied replies submitted by them. It was stressed that OPs intentionally not replaced his laptop when same problem was occurring repeatedly. He submitted his evidences on his own affidavit and relied on all annexures submitted on record. It was submitted that despite of having extended warranty of his laptop, services from OP2 were not extended on behalf of OP1, so both OP1 & 2 were deficient in their services. Complainant also submitted Annexure C1A titled as “Macbook Pro Repair Extension Program for Video” issues and highlighting additional informations which showed that Macbook Pro models covers defects up to four years from the date of purchase or up to 31th Dec. 2016, but excludes certain specified models. Complainant had also filed some more annexures which pertains to defect removal by OP2.  Hence, complainant prayed for allowing his prayer.  

OP1 submitted their evidences on affidavit of Mr Priyesh Poovanna, Country Legal head with OP1, submitted that complainant was harassing OP1 without any cause or merit in his complaint. It was stated that OP2 extended all their services as per extended warranty conditions. The said laptop did not develop any problem in one year standard warranty, but problem was reported on 22/06/2017 under extended warranty. The damaged part required replacement on payment basis, but complainant wanted new version of laptop without having any evidence of manufacturing defect (Ex OPW1/2). The problem was reported on 22/06/2017 where complainant had to pay the cost of the part. As extended warranty terms were void due to negligent use of laptop by complainant, so he had to pay the cost which he denied.           Hence, complaint deserves to be dismissed as there was no merit or any evidence against OP1 put by complainant.

OP2&3 submitted evidence on affidavit through Mr Vinod Sharma as Senior Service Manager with OP2. As OP2 were authorised service centre of OP1 and OP3 were the seller was for branded electronic products manufactured by OP1 and all their products had one year standard warranty given by OP1. It was stated by OP2 that the said laptop had some problem in charging port and charger, so both were replaced under warranty conditions free of cost, but the damaged part required replacement on payment, but complainant stressed for replacement with new one. There was no manufacturing defect reported by OP2, hence OP2 were not deficient in their services and the said complaint had no merit and prayed for dismissal with cost.  

Arguments heard from both the party counsels and order was reserved.

We have gone through all the facts and evidence of case. It was admitted by OP2 that the said laptop had developed some problems after using for over two years while laptop had two years extended warranty, hence, OP2 had no deficiency in any type of services or nowhere manufacturing defect was ever reported for which OP1 would be liable. 

Thus, we come to the conclusion that complainant could not prove deficiency in services of OP2 or liability of OP1 for any manufacturing defect. But it was noted that extended warranty was about to expire when problem occurred and brought to the knowledge of OP2. So we order as -   

1. Complainant is directed to get the said laptop repaired within 30 days from receiving of this order. OP2 may charge the cost of damaged part, but shall not take service charges.  
2.  There shall be no liability on OP1/manufacturer and OP3/seller.

The first free copy of this order be sent to the parties as per Section 18(6) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under section 20(1) of the CPR. 

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                            Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member                                                                         

 

                                                 Shri Sukhdev Singh  President