Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/148/2016

Mr.Ashish Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Future World Retail PVT Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A.Edwin Prabakar

02 May 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  12.09.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  02.05.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

WEDNESDAY  THE 02^nd DAY OF MAY 2018

 

C.C.NO.148/2016

 

 

Mr.Ashish Gupta,

S/o. Late S.P.Gupta,

Apartment 2C,

New No.G10, Old No.G95,

10^th Street,

Anna Nagar East,

Chennai – 600 102.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.M/s. Future World Retail Pvt Ltd.,

(Authorized Apple Service Centre)

Rep by its Managing Director,

C-56, Ground Floor, First Avenue,

Anna Nagar East,

Chennai – 600 102.

 

2.Reliance Digital Retail Limited,

Rep by its Manager,

AB 12, 2^nd Avenue,

Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040.

 

 

3.Apple India Private Limited,

Represented by its Managing Director,

19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C,

UB City, No.24,

Vittal Mallya Road,

Bangalore 560 001, India.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 28.09.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. A.Edwinprabakar, M.Habeeb

                                                                    Rahman, P.Arumugavel

 

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party                 : Mr.K.Jayapal (Authorised Person)

 

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party                       : Ex-parte (on 22.03.2017)

 

Counsel for 3^rd opposite party                       : M/s. Anand Samy & Dhruva

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to replace the I-Pad 2 with new one of same description and compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant had purchased an Apple I-Pad on 31.05.2011 from the 2^nd opposite party on payment of sum of Rs.36,900/-. The complainant is a correspondent of school in Ambatur, Chennai. He is a motor sport licensed senior Steward (Judge) and he is one among international motor sport licensed Steward in India and he is also a business man.  The 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer of the said I-Pad. The 1^st opposite party is the authorized service centre of the 3^rd opposite party.

2. The I-Pad is very important for the bike racing meet. He planned to attend international motor cycling racing meet in Qatar during September/October 2015. His I-Pad was working slowly. Hence he visited the 1^st opposite party service centre on 28.09.2015 and handed over the I-pad. The 1^st opposite party service engineer Mr.Thomodaran after checking the product informed him that the I-Pad to service in general and it would cost Rs.500/-. The complainant accepted for the same. The said engineer after service asked the complainant to down load a free app and check. While the complainant checked, it had shown that the same can be loaded only with operating system version ios7. The said engineer immediately said he would upgrade with latest operating system version ios9 and said it would take some time to upgrade.

3. Around 1.00 p.m the complainant went to collect the I-Pad and the engineer informed him to wait for some time. After one hour the engineer said he is unable to upgrade as there was error and he also said the I-Pad is dead. The complainant refused to get back the I-Pad in dead condition.   Thereafter the complainant sent a detailed complaint to the 1^st opposite party on 28.09.2015.He received a reply from one Mr.Alex that if there was an error occurred during the upgradation, it is not possible to bring that unit to original condition. The 1^st opposite party engineer negligently handled the I-Pad and made it to dead condition amounts to deficiency in service. All the important data’s were deleted and hence the complainant suffered with monetary loss and mental agony. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to replace the I-pad 2 with new one of same description and compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony with cost of the complaint.

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          This opposite party admits that he is the authorized service centre of the 3^rd opposite party. The complainant deposited Apple I-Pad 2 with the 1^st opposite party for alleged defect working slowly on 28.09.2015. In order to rectify the defect, the 1^st opposite party engineer tried to install the software, but was not able to do so. At the time of deposit the I-Pad was not working at all. This opposite party said that the product is out of warranty and he would rectify on payment of charges of Rs.500/-. After service the I-Pad too was working fine and returned to the complainant.

          5. After the device was returned, the complainant tried to download the applications from Apps Store . The I-pad to give an automatic message “Need the latest IOS to download the Apps”. The complainant asked how to solve the issue, the engineer informed that the issue can be resolved updating the IOS to the latest version. The complainant insisted to update the latest operating system version ios7. The engineer informed that the products is very old, so while updating it to latest OS version, it may give error, therefore he advised not to upgrade the I-Pad2. However the complainant insisted him to upgrade the latest version and he will take the risk of any damage. While downloading and upgrading I-Pad 2, the device showed error 09 and it was not booting. The service centre has no role to play in this kind of hardware installation in the I-Pad2.

          6. The Apple I-Pad 2 device is out of warranty and hence the complainant can opt for exchange programme, the cost of which was at Rs.17,000/- and the same was not accepted by the complainant. Hence this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

          7. The 2^nd opposite party called absent and he was set ex-parte on 22.03.2017.

8. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 3^rd   OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased the ipad2 product has one year warranty issued by this opposite party had expired on 29.06.2012. This opposite party admits that the 1^st opposite party is their authorized service provider. The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party on 28.09.2015 stating that his I-Pad 2 was working slowly. The 1^st opposite party also reset the I-Pad and it was working fine. Then the complainant tried to download app it shown automatic message need to download latest OS. The complainant asked the 1^st opposite party engineer to update the latest version. He replied that the I-Pad is very old and without warranty and while updating it may give error. The complainant replied there is no problem and asked the 1^st opposite party to upgrade it. The 1^st opposite party also run the same however, error was shown and could not upgrade it. For such act this opposite party is not liable and due to old product the new version OS is not accepted. Therefore, there is no manufacturing defect in the product and this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

9. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

 

10. POINT NO :1        

          It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased Apple I-Pad 2 on 31.05.2011 under Ex.A1 on payment consideration of Rs.36,900/- from the 2^nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party. The 1^st opposite party is the authorized service centre of the third opposite party. The complainant gave his I-Pad 2 on 28.09.2015 for service as the same is working slowly to the 1^st opposite party for check and service. The 1^st opposite party gave Ex.A2 service report and fixed charges of Rs.500/- that was also accepted by the complainant. The complainant tried to down load app at that time an automatic message shown that to upgrade with latest ios7. The complainant insisted the 1^st opposite party engineer to download and upgrade with latest os9. The 1^st opposite party engineer informed that it may cause error as the product is the very old one and however due to insistence made by the complainant, the 1^st opposite party tried to upgrade it and it has shown error.

          11. According to the complainant while upgrading, the 1^st opposite party’s service man caused damage to the product and it was dead. However, the 1^st opposite party would rebut that he already informed the complainant that while upgrading with new version it would cause damage. The statement of the opposite party that  he sent a mail to the complainant Ex.A5 in which it was clearly stated that “during upgradation if your unit showed error we could not bring back your unit in original condition”. Further he stated that we would provide you good discount on replacing your unit under exchange price. Therefore, the above mail categorically states that the 1^st opposite party done the upgradation only on the insistence of the complainant and not on his own and failure to upgrade with new version is not the fault of the 1^st opposite party.

          12. Further, the complainant purchased the product on 31.05.2011 and from that day more than four years without any problem he used the product till entrusting service on 28.09.2015 establishes that the product is not having any manufacturing defect.  The 1^st opposite party also in advance informed the complainant that while upgrading with new version, the product may show error and accordingly error was also shown. This circumstance establishes that since the product is more than four years old it has not accepted the new version and shown error. It is not the case of complainant that his I-Pad would accept the new version therefore, in such circumstances we hold that the opposite parties 1 & 3 have not committed any deficiency in service. The 2^nd  opposite party is only a seller and he has not committed any deficiency in service in respect of the service.

13. POINT NO:2

          The grievance of the complainant is only against the 1^st opposite party service centre to which he had entrusted I-Pad for service. Admittedly even today the I-Pad is with the first opposite party.  The complainant sought relief of replacement of I-Pad with same description. Everyday this kind of electronic items were manufactured with new models and developed versions. Hence, the same model cannot be replaced by the service centre.  The 1^st opposite party also collected a sum of Rs.500/- for servicing the product from the complainant. Therefore, the service centre owes a duty to service the product and hand it over to the complainant in a working condition. Hence, it would be appropriate to direct the 1^st opposite party to service the product and hand it over to the complainant in a working condition after intimating to him through writing  within  21 days from the date of this order. Further, none of the other reliefs sought by the complainant is entitled to him from the 1^st opposite party and the complaint in respect of the opposite parties 2 & 3 is liable to be dismissed. However, parties can be directed to bear their costs themselves.

          In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The 1^st opposite party is ordered to service the I-Pad and after due intimation to the complainant  in writing and deliver the same to him in  working condition within 21 days from the date of this order and the complainant is not entitled for any other relief from the 1^st opposite party. The complaint in respect of the other opposite parties 2 & 3 is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 02^nd  day of May 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 31.05.2011                   Bill receipt for Apple I-Pad issued by 2^nd opposite

                                                    party

 

Ex.A2 dated 28.09.2015                   Service report of 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.A3 dated 29.09.2015                   E-mail sent by the complainant

 

Ex.A4 dated 29.09.2015                   E-mail sent by the 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.A5 dated 14.10.2015                   E-mail sent by the 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.A6 dated 20.10.2015                   Legal Notice sent by complainant with online

                                                    postal acknowledgement

 

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 3^rd OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 31.08.2015                   Extract of the minutes of the Board Meeting

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     Apple one (1) year Limited Warranty

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                     The letter of Respondent No.3 appointing

                                                      Respondent No.1 as an authorized service agent

 

Ex.B4 dated 27.10.2015                   A copy of the reply to the legal notice was also

                                                     mailed to the counsel for the complainant vide

                                                     e-mail

 

Ex.B5 dated 14.10.2015                   A copy of the e-mail dated 14.10.2015 sent by

                                                     opposite party No.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT