Order No. 20 dt. 23/08/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased one Apple Desktop Computer(IMAC) with wireless keyboard and wireless mouse and one Apple Laptop with time capsule for the use of non-executive Directors of the company. The purchase price of IMAC was Rs.69,100/- plus an amount of Rs.7,800/- was prayed for additional two years warranty. The original warranty clause for a period of one year. Both the computers were delivered on 30.08.2008. The complainant noticed that in the month of August,2011 the IMAC started over heating. The complainant informed the o.ps. The representative of the o.p1 came to the place of the o.p. and examine the device and found that there was problem in DVD and the same was replaced. In spite of replacement of DVD the excess heat generated in the said device did not abate. The complainant brought to the notice to o.p.1 and the service engineer asked the complainant to send the computer at their Bangalore Office. Subsequently the complainant received an email from Apple Sales International asking for some queries which were provided by the complainant. On the basis of the said fact due to harassment faced by the complainant company the case was filed praying for direction upon the o.p. for replacement of the IMAC with a new model and also the complainant prayed for alternatively price of the said IMAC and compensation.
The o.p. contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complainant. It was stated that the complainant asked to send the IMAC to the o.p.1 for examination the same at their office at Bangalore but the complainant did not cooperate with the o.p1. The expert of the company who informed the complainant that iMac form factor is quite unique and it looks like a monitor but all the components that make it a computer are located in a relatively thin space. A user who is accustomed to a computer with a separate display might not expect it to be as warm as it is it might be warmer than a standalone LED or LCD external display and accordingly o.p.1 stated that there was no defect in the said iMac. On the basis of the said fact the o.p. is prayed for dismissal of the case.
The o.p. nos. 4 and 5 did not contest the case as such the case has proceeded ex party against them.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant purchased the computer manufactured by o.p.1?
- Whether there was any defect in the said computer during the warranty period?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.nos. 1 and 2 ?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant is a company and for the purpose of using the computers for its directors purchased one computer and one laptop. At the time of purchase the warranty period was provided for one year. The complainant in order to have warranty for two more years paid extra charges which was accepted by the o.p.1. The computer was purchased in the month of August, 2008 and after using the computer for three years in the month of August,2011 the user of the computer noticed that the excess heat was generating in the said computer. The complainant brought to the notice of the said fact to the o.ps but no fruitful result was achieved. The Ld Lawyer for the complainant emphasized that due to manufacturing defect the said heat was generating in the computer for which the complainant prayed for refund of the price of the computer and in default the replacement of the said computer with a new device set.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the complainant in order to proof that the computer had the manufacturing defect failed to produce any cogent evidence to that effect. The o.p.1 after receiving the complaint from the complainant asked for the computer for sending the same to their Bangalore office for examination of the said computer to detect any defect but the complainant did not allow the o.p.1 to send the said to their office. The complainant after pointing out the said defect communicated the same to their office at Ireland wherefrom the problem highlighted by the Executive Relations EMEIA who specifically stated that a user who is accustomed to a computer with a separate display might not expect it to be as warm as it is. The complainant did not bring any material before this Forum to counter the observation of the Executive Relations EMEIA. On the basis of the said fact the o.p.nos.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that complainant company purchased the computers manufactured by o.p.1. it is undisputed fact that the computer had the warranty for one year plus two year extended warranty. It is found from the materials on record the computer was purchased on 30.08.2008 and the warranty covered upto the month of August,2011 i.e. just in the month of the period of expiry of warranty the complainant noticed the defect that the computer was becoming warm. It appears from the record that whenever the complainant lodged a complaint the same was rectified by the o.p.1. It is also found from the materials on record that the o.p.1 wanted to have the examination of the computer by their expert at their Bangalore office but the complainant did not cooperate with the o.p.1 and failed to handover the computer for better examination by the experts at their office at Bangalore. The complainant in order to proof the defect failed to produce any cogent evidence from an expert to establish their allegation that the computer had the manufacturing defect. If there would have been manufacturing defect the complainant could not have used the computer for three years continuously from the date of purchase. Hon’ble NC in numerous judgements held that in order to proof the manufacturing defect is expert’s opinion is a must but here in this case no report from the expert has been produced by the complainant. From the materials on record it appears that just at fag end of the warranty period the complainant took such plea of manufacturing defect for the purpose of their illegal financial gain filed this case without having any substantive material against the o.p. nos. 1 and 2. Therefore we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit at all for which the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered.
that the CC No.179/2012 is dismissed on contest without cost against o.p. nos. 1 and 2 and ex parte against the rest.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
