Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/143/2021

R. Mahalakshmi - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICARE, Adyar, Represented by its, OFFICER IN CHARGE - Opp.Party(s)

K.R Priya

13 Dec 2022

ORDER

                                                Date of Complaint Filed :23.08.2021

                                                Date of Reservation      : 28.11.2022

                                               Date of Order               : 13.12.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                   THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,              :  MEMBER  I 

                THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,        : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 143/2021

TUESDAY, THE 13^thDAY OF DECEMBER 2022

R.Mahalakshmi,

D/o R.Rajagopal,

No 5 BI, II Floor,

Advocate Villa,

Jaganathan Street,

Kottivakkam,

Chennai-600 041.                                                                                                                                 ... Complainant        

..Vs..

ICARE-Adyar,

Rep. by its Officer In Charge,

Old No.48-B, New No.103 First Floor,

1^st  Main Road, Gandhi Nagar,

Adyar, Chennai,

Tamil Nadu 600020.                                                                                                                        ...  Opposite Party

******

Counsel for the Complainant        : M/s. K.R. Priya

Counsel for the Opposite Party     : M/s. Rajesh Ramanathan

 

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to replacement of display of MacBook (Retina, 12 inch, Early 2015), Serial Number C02PKIU6GCN4 and entire refund of the money paid for the repair of MacBook (Retina,12 inch, Early 2015), Serial Number C02PKIU6GCN4 being Rs.39,055/- along with interest of 10% p.a and compensation for deficiency of service and damages for pain, suffering and mental agony of Rs.5,00,000/- along with cost.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The case of the Complainant was that she is an advocate and a newsreader by profession. On 12.03.2021 she had given her device namely MacBook (Retina 12 inch, early 2015) for service to the Opposite Party for flickering issue and the same was received by the Opposite Party, after diagnosis it was informed to her that the display has to be replaced, which cost  Rs.39,055/-. As directed the said amount was paid immediately on 17.03.2020 via NetBanking, thereafter the display was replaced under exchange price and the device was delivered to her.On 30^th of June 2021 she had to appear before the Hon'ble High Court at Chennai via Teams and to her shock and surprise the camera did not detect and found it very difficult to appear before the Hon'ble High Court at Madras. Due to the dereliction of duties of the opposite party's staffs and inefficient service she panicked and faced mental agony and had to find other source for her video conferencing. On 16.07.2021 she went in person to the opposite party's service station at 1^stmain Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600020 and the opposite party's staff lethargically replied that again she has to change the display and she need to pay again Rs. 39,055/-.When she questioned that when it was the fault of the opposite party as they fixed a defective display as the display did not detect the camera, the opposite party's staffs lethargically replied that nothing can be done and the complainant has to replace the display again. She had immediately sent a mail raising the issue on 16.07.2021 and she received a mail dated 17.07.2021 assuring that the issue will be resolved but no steps have been taken by the opposite party to resolve the issue .The complainant also sent a reminder mail on 22.07.2021 for which she again received the same stereo type mail stating Hi Mahalakshmi,

"With reference to your below e-mail, we have forwarded the details to the concerned team and we will update you shortly.

For any further assistance, please feel free to contact our Help Desk at 080-46999888 (9.30 am to 9.30 pm - All Days). Alternatively, you may also respond to this email with your queries.

We assure you of our best services at all times."

Till date her issue has not been resolved and she is facing irreparable losses due to your inefficient and poor service. She had immediately sent a legal notice dated 27.07.2021 demanding to replace the defaulted display by fixing a new display and pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, dereliction of duties and inefficient service by the opposite party and their staffs or else legal action will be initiated if the issue is not resolved within fifteen days from the date of notice but though the opposite party had received the legal notice on 31.07.2021 they neither replaced the display and paid the compensation nor sent a reply. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

The Contentions of the Opposite Party were that it was the case of the Complainant that her device being a MacBook (Retina 12-inch Early 2015), bearing Serial Number C02PK1U6GCN4 was submitted to their aforementioned service centre on two occasions. It was further the case of the Complainant that initially on the first occasion, the faulty display of the said device was replaced under exchange price and that the same was returned to the Complainant in good working condition, much to the satisfaction of the Complainant on 17.03.2021. The Complainant also claims that subsequent to the said replacement of the display, the Complainant allegedly started to face ties with the camera and therefore visited their service centre, wherein she was advised that there was an issue with the display the replacement of the same. It was the said replacement would be chargeable in nature as per the terms and of the device and thereby necessitating informed to the Complainant that conditions of the warranty. The Complainant allegedly aggrieved by the same, has filed this present Complaint. While making the above claims, has however failed to include the device manufacturer, ie, Apple as a necessary Opposite Party. Apple, being the device manufacture is solely responsible not only for providing the necessary spare parts and accessories to the service centres run by its recognized third party service partners, such as the aforementioned service centre, that is run by them but also with respect to the terms and conditions associated with the same. Therefore, the Display provided as a replacement at exchange price with respect to the device of the Complainant is an Apple Spare and was provided to them by the device manufacturer, Apple and also the terms and conditions associated with the said Apple Spares including but not limited to the warranty of the said Apple Spare is the sole prerogative of Apple and they were subjected to strict adherence of the same. They are merely a Recognised Third Party Service Partner, tasked only with carrying out the service and repairs of Apple Products based on the directives issued by the device manufacturer and is in no manner responsible for the quality of the spares used in the said service repairs and is also not vested with the power to alter, amend or change the FLA conditions provided by Apple in any manner.  In the present case, the Complainant knowledge of the fact that the replacement display, being an Apple Spare was provided to the Opposite Party herein by the device manufacturer upon order being placed for the same at the request of the Complainant, to replace the faulty display of the device. The same is clearly evident not only on the basis of the various Email Correspondences between the Complainant and them on the subject matter of replacing the Display of the device at exchange price but also on the basis on the terms and conditions provided with respect to the same in the various documents provided to the Complainant by the Opposite Party herein, such as the Repair Acceptance Form, Quotation and Service Report. It was also on multiple occasions, verbally communicated by their representative to the Complainant that Apple Spares, such as the Display used as an replacement for the device have to ordered from the device manufacturer, Apple and that the same can be done only upon payment for the same being made by the Complainant and also the fact that the terms and conditions associated with the said Apple Spare including the warranty period for the same was solely based on the Apple's discretion, has also been repeatedly explained to the Complainant. Therefore, it is evidently clear that they were responsible only for the service and repair of Apple Products as per the directions issued by the device manufacturer, Apple and it was also clear that the spares and accessories, including the replacement display provided to the Complainant have been sourced from Apple upon order, who also determine the terms and conditions pertaining to the same, including the warranty associated with the said Apple Spare. Hence, it is clear that the device manufacturer, Apple is absolutely a necessary party to the present Complaint herein and in lieu of the non-joinder of the said necessary party to the present Complaint by the Complainant herein, the present Complaint is liable to be dismissed for the non joinder of the necessary party. The Complainant brought her MacBook (Retina, 12-inch, Early 2015), bearing Serial Number C02PK1U6GCN4 for servicing and repair on two different occasions to their aforementioned service centre. The Complainant approached them with the Complaint that there was a Display Flickering Issue with respect to the device of the Complainant. A Repair Acceptance Form bearing RAF No. SKC160552 was generated as per standard procedure upon surrender of device by the Complainant duly recorded in the said form that there was a severe dent in the top left corner of the display and the top case bottom left corner, while another dent was found on the top case back side top right corner. The said Repair Acceptance Form containing the aforementioned details, along with their general terms and conditions was provided to the Complainant, who upon reading and understanding the contents and terms and conditions F provided therein, agreed to abide by the same and was pleased to sign the said form to that effect and thereby, authorized them to repair the device of the Complainant. The device was thoroughly checked by them and it was diagnosed that the display of the device needed to be replaced and as the warranty period of the device had already lapsed, the Complainant was informed that said replacement would be chargeable in nature. On the same day, i.e. 12.03.2022 as per its terms and conditions they had provided the Complainant with a Quotation with respect to replacing the display of the device at exchange price along with the service charges associated with the same for a total amount of Rs. 39,055 /- and the said amount was paid by the Complainant on the following day, i.e. 13.03.2021. Therefore, pursuant to the same the display was replaced, and the device was delivered to the Complainant on 17.03.2021 along with Service Report generated for the same, wherein, they had provided the Complainant with the serial number of the new, replacement display being DCN035401X8GP5JB8. In the service report it was clearly recorded that the display of the device had been replaced under exchange price and hence the device was returned to the Complainant in working condition and being satisfied with the services that were offered by the Opposite Party, was pleased to duly sign the report upon verifying its contents and had collected her device from them without issue. In their Quotation provided to the Complainant it was clearly mentioned that the 'Apple spares replaced would carry a 90 days Service Part warranty or the warranty of the machine, whichever is longer’. As abovementioned the Machine Warranty associated with Complainant's device had already expired and therefore, as clearly mentioned in their Quotation provided to the Complainant, the replaced Apple Spare would only carry a Service Part Warranty of 90 days (3 Months). The said 90 day warranty period with respect to Apple Spares was not only provided in the Quotation given to the Complainant but the same was also clearly stated in the E-mail sent to the Complainant dated 12.03.2021. On 16.07.2021the Complainant visited their Service Centre with a complaint stating that the camera of the device was not working. The said issue was checked by them as per standard procedure and it was diagnosed that there was an issue with the Display of the device and that it was necessary to replace the same. It was also duly informed to the Complainant that since the 90 days warranty as stated above with respect to the Apple Spare had expired, the said replacement would be chargeable and the same would amount to a total of Rs.39,005/-. The Terms and Conditions of both the Opposite Party as well as that of Apple, was clearly explained to the Complainant and it was informed to the Complainant that since the 90 days warranty associated with the Apple Spare had expired, the replacement of the display of the said device would be a chargeable service. Thereafter, despite their best efforts to try and resolve the issue amicably, the Complainant has chosen to ignore the same and has filed a Complaint before this Hon'ble Forum with ulterior motives on untenable and vexatious grounds. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents marked as  Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4.  The Opposite Party submitted his Written Version and Proof Affidavit of Opposite Parties documents were marked as Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-4.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether the Complaint is bad for Non joinder of necessary party?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

4. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

 

Point Nos.1 and 2:

It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had given her device MacBook (Retina, 12 inch, early 2015) to the Opposite Party for repair on 12.03.2021. It is also not in dispute that the Opposite Party had replaced the display at cost of Rs.39,055/- under exchange price and delivered the device to the Complainant.

The disputed fact of the Complainant was that the replaced display was a defective one and the service done by the Opposite Party was inefficient, which resulted in camera not being detected on 30.06.2021 and she was not able to attend the Court proceedings via Team App. When she had approached the Opposite Party in person on 16.07.2021 it was informed that there was an issue in the display and again the display to be replaced at a cost of Rs.39,055/-, having replaced a defective display in spite of receipt of charges, the issue was not resolved by the Opposite Party and when she questioned about the inefficient service of the Opposite Party, they had demanded to pay again for their faulty service.

It was contended by the Opposite Party that on 12.03.2021 their representative after diagnosing the device of the Complainant, it was clearly informed to her that the display has to be replaced and the cost of the display would be Rs.39,055/- under exchange price and it was also informed that the spare of display has to be received from the Manufacturer, Apple and the display would carry a warranty of 90 days period, only on acceptance for the same they had generated a quotation along with terms and conditions and provided the same to the Complainant. And they had also informed about warranty period of 90 days for the display to be replaced in their Email dated 12.03.2021 sent to the Complainant. When the Complainant had approached them on 16.07.2021, after diagnosis it was informed to her that there was an issue in the display and the same has to be replaced and she has to pay a sum of Rs.39,055/-, as the warranty period of 90 days got expired. Hence they had not committed any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice and they were not liable to compensate the Complainant. As it has been clearly explained to the Complainant that the spare of display to be received from the Manufacturer, Apple, though the replaced display was not defective, the Manufacturer, Apple, was not arrayed as a necessary party to the Complaint and hence for non joinder of the manufacturer the complaint has to be dismissed. It was also contended that no expert evidence has been produced to prove that the display replaced was of defective one, before this Commission.

On discussion made above and on perusal of records, it is clear from Ex.A-1 and Ex.B-2 Repair Acceptance Form dated 12.03.2021 the device of the Complainant was reported for service of Flickering issue. It is also clear from Ex.A-1 in page no.5, Email dated 12.03.2021 sent by the Opposite party to the Complainant, the diagnosis report of the Complainant’s device was sent, wherein it was found that display has to be replaced under exchange price and the payment of Rs.39,055/- to be paid by the Complainant for placing the order of display and to complete the repair issue. Further in the said mail it was mentioned/notified that the quote is valid for 1 week from the date of issue. Apple spares replaced would carry 90 days service part warranty or the warranty of the machine whichever is the longest. And in page No.4 of Ex.A-1 Mail dated 13.03.2021 sent by the Opposite Party to the Complainant, it was intimated that the order for display/module was placed and the same was expected to arrive on 17.03.2021 and the expected date of repair closure on 18.03.2021. As the spare of display was placed by the Opposite Party with the Manufacturer, Apple, as per the averment of the Complainant that a defective display was replaced by the Opposite party, it is necessary to array the Manufacturer, Apple, as a party to the Complaint and hence the Complaint is bad for Non joinder of necessary party.

Further, as per Ex.A-1 and B-2 Repair Acceptance Form dated 12.03.2021 it is clear that the Flickering issue was found to occurred because of display problem and the same was intimated to the Complainant. And the Complainant by mail dated 12.03.2021 as found in Page Nos. 5 and 13.03.2021 as found in Page Nos.4, of EX.A-1, was intimated about the placement of order of display as well as with the details of warranty of 90 days for Apple spares and the expected date of arrival of the spares and expected date of repair to be done and accordingly after repair work, i.e, replacement of the display, the device was delivered to the Complainant in a working condition, which was signed and received by the Complainant on 17.03.2021. Further when the Complainant found an issue with the Camera of her device on 30.06.2021, she had approached the Opposite Party on 16.07.2021 and the Opposite Party had lethargically replied to replace the display again by paying another sum of Rs.39,055/-, which was not supported by any documentary proof and further the Complainant had not produced any material to prove that the display replaced by the Opposite Party was a defective one, before this Commission. Hence it is clear that the Opposite Party had completed the repair work of the device of the complainant by replacing the display and handed over the same in working condition to the Complainant, and as the warranty of 90 day period display replaced had expired, the Opposite Party was not able to service the display and further the issue in the Camera of the device of the Complainant found to be arose on 30.06.2021, though it was argued by the Complainant due to Covid pandemic she could not approach the Opposite Party in time and she could approach only on 16.07.2021, the date of issue arose in the device of the Complainant is clearly after the warranty period of 90 days from 17.03.2021, hence the advise of replacement of display to be made again by the Opposite Party is following the terms and conditions of the warranty. We do not find any negligence or lethargic attitude on the part of the Opposite Party. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party had not committed any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. Accordingly Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered.

The following Judgements relied upon by the Opposite Party reported in (2022) 6 SCC 496 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, in C.C.No.314/2016 – order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (East) in Anmol Kakar Vs. M/s New Galaxy and Anr (India), are not applicable to the instant case.

Point Nos. 3 and 4 :-

As discussed and decided Point No.1 and 2 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for any reliefs claimed in the Complaint and also not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly, Point Nos.3 and 4 are answered.

In the result the complaint is Dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 13^thof December 2022.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

 List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	12.03.2021	e-mails sent by Opposite Party to Complainant
Ex.A2	27.07.2021	Legal notice sent by complainant
Ex.A3	31.07.2021	Acknowledgement card
Ex.A4	12.03.2021	Copy of Bank Statement

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

Ex.B1	-	Board Resoultion appointing Mrs. Gomathi Raju as the Legal Representative of the Opposite party
Ex.B2	12.03.2021	Repair Acceptance Form provided by the Opposite Party to the Complainant
Ex.B3	12.03.2021	Quotation for replacing the Display at Exchange Price provided by the Opposite Party to the Complainant
Ex.B4	17.032021	Service Report provided by the Opposite Party to the Complainant

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT