Delhi

North

CC/4/2019

ANMOL AGGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

IWORRLD BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Jan 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.:4/2019

 

Anmol Aggarwal

S/o Naresh Kumar

H No.324, Block 12,

CPWD Multi storey Flats Complex,

Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,

Delhi-110005.                                                       …                 Complainant

                                                          Vs

World Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

UB-02, Bungalow Road

Kamla Nagar,

New Delhi-110007                                                 …            Opposite Party No.1

 

 

iQor Global Services India Pvt. Ltd.

Shop No.107,

First Floor, Spark Mall,

Kamla Nagar, New Delhi110007                             …            Opposite Party No.2

 

 

Unicorn Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd.

First Floor, Mittal Building ,Bhupindra RD,

Near Columbia Hospital Patiala-147001                  …            Opposite Party No.3

 

 

M/s Apple India Pvt. Ltd.

19^th Floor Concorde, Tower “C”

UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road,

Bangalore-550001                                                  …            Opposite Party No.4

 

ORDER

02/01/2024

 

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

1.       The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief details of facts, as alleged in the Complaint in hand, are that on 02.09.2017, the Complainant purchased Mac Book Air 13 on payment of Rs.62,070/- vide tax invoice No. IBS/KN/GST/17-18/0718 from OP-1.

On 3^rd March 2018, the device stopped working and Complainant was unable to switch it on and his father went to iQor Global Service India Pvt. Ltd. Kamla Nagar New Delhi, authorized service Centre/OP No.2. The OP-2 repaired the device but on 26.07.2018, the device, again, stopped working  and the Complainant went to unicorn Info solutions Pvt. Ltd./OP-3 and the OP-3, after checking the device, informed that the  device’s logic board has damaged due to corrosion which cannot be repaired in warranty and returned the Macbook. Since the device was in warranty period, on 16.08.2018, the Complainant’s father went to iQor Global Service India Pvt. Ltd. Kamla Nagar Delhi/ OP-2 where Mr. Rohit,  Manager carried out all the required checking at computer and told device is fine.

 

2.       It has further been alleged that on 18.09.2018 when warranty period expired, the device stopped working and the  Complainant’s father went to OP-2 for getting the faults rectified, the OP-2 charged Rs.2,500/- for providing the services and took the device for diagnosis. After diagnosis, OP-2 raised a  quotation of Rs.42,200/- to Complainant’s father for advance payment to repair the device to make it operational. Thereafter, the Complainant’s father spoke to Mr. Rohit Manager of OP-2  & requested to repair the Mac Air 13 but no action was taken.  The Complainant has also requested to representative of  apple on toll free No.008001009009 on 16.10.2018 that this Mac Air 13 has manufacturing defects & become useless within a year  and therefore, it should be repaired or replaced free of cost but of no use and the OP-2, returned the device on 15.10.2018.

 

3.       Thereafter, Complainant has also sent  letter to OP-1 to OP-4 requesting  to replace the Macbook Air 13 with new one with one-year warranty from date of replacement within month of letter to avoid the litigation and harassment of consumer but none of them took any action.  However,  on 06.11.2018, the  Complainant received a call from Representative of the Apple from company telephone number +6564808300 & informed that  corrosion defect is not covered in Warranty and the complainant stated to him that this defect has come either while repairing at Service Centre/OP-2 or Device ingress moisture from atmosphere. He admitted that one Device in Millions Device may take moisture from Atmosphere. This clearly shows this device has manufacturing fault. Thereafter, the Representative of Apple Company contacted the complainant several times and tried to convince that corrosion defect is not covered in warranty. Finally, the Apple company informed the Complainant vide an email on 23.11.2018 the the case has closed.

 

4.       The complainant has filed copies of Tax Invoice (Annexure-A), Delivery challan dated 03/03/2018 issued by OP-2 (Annexure-B), Delivery Report dated 26-07-2018 issued by OP-3 (Annexure-C), Checking Report dated 16-08-2018 (Annexure-D), Invoice dated 18-09-2018 issued by the OP-2 (Annexure-E), Quotation dated 21-09-2018 issued by the OP-2 (Annexure-F) and delivery challan dated 18-09-2018 issued by the OP-2 (Annexure-G) and the communications with OPs with the complaint alleging that the  OP-1, OP-2, OP-3 and OP-4 have caused  losses to the Complainant, which amounts to deficiency of service  and has prayed for directions to OPs to replace the Macbook Air 13 with new one with one-year warranty from date of replacement alongwith Rs.5,000/-.

 

5.       Accordingly, notices were issued to all four OPs to appear and submit reply to the allegations before this commission but the OP-1 and OP-2 neither appeared nor did they send any communication despite service of the notice. Since the OP-1 and OP-2 have chosen not to appear despite service and have been proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated 21.08.2019. However, OP-3 and OP-4 have filed reply explaining their stand to the allegations.

 

6.       The OP-3, in its reply, has stated that:-

a)       it is the service centre of Apple iPhone and services of warranty etc. is on the part of company OP No.1.

b).     the Complaint is malafide, devoid of merit and contradicts established principles of law.

3.  

d).     The customer reported issue was MacBook not power on and the OP-3 tried to check with known good power adapter but issue remained same. During VMI found corrosion/ liquid Damage in the logic board, therefore,  as per Apple VMI Guidelines, user MacBook Air 13 is not eligible for warranty services.

e).     Any material damage caused to the device within warranty period will not be covered under warranty services for free as its Out of Warranty service.

f).      It is a settled position of law that mere bald allegations are not sufficient to prove a case. The onus to prove allegations lie on the Complainant and hence, the Complainant may be directed to furnish and prove his allegation in relation to the complaint, particularly in view of the evidence brought on record by the answering OP in this case, which ex-facie squarely contradict the allegations of the Complainant. The Complainant is well aware that the damage to the Complainant’s device occurred squarely as a result of Complainant’s own negligence/ fault and further that that the Complainant is well aware equally that such acts in effect breach the terms of the Apple Warranty meaning thereby that the OPs are not liable for the required to compensate the Complainant for such damage to the Complainant’s device.

 

7.       The OP-4, in its reply, has contended that:-

1. It is a common market principle and also an established position of law that consumers who wilfully destroy, damage or negligently handle a product are not eligible to claim any relief under the Act. To be specific, when consumers cause damage to products by external factors which are not associated with the manufacturing/ inherent condition of the product and such acts which disregard the warranty policies of manufacturers (in the instant case “Warranty”) cannot claim relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The provisions and terms of the Apple Warranty specifically exclude damaged product which is the case in the present mater. The applicable warranty provisions/ terms have been annexed with reply as ANNEXURE-R1.
2. A perusal of the extract of the warranty clearly shows that the alleged damage caused to the Apple products on account of the negligent misuse by the Complainant will be rendered out of warranty and the said alleged damaged is not attributable to 4^th Opposite Party.
3. In the present case, the few prefatory facts are necessary for unfolding the sequence of events that followed after the Complainant purchased the said MacBook Air bearing Serial No.FVHV804BJ1WK on 02.09.2017 from the OP-1 for the cost of Rs.62,070/- (Rupees Sixty Two Thousand and Seventy Only). The Complainant approached the OP-2, an authorised service provider of the OP-4 on 03.03.2018, for some alleged issues regarding the MacBook not turning on, the OP-2 diagnosed the device and reinstalled the OS, the said issues were resolved and returned back to the Complainant in the working condition. It is clearly mentioned in the delivery report that the reinstalled OS and the said device is working fine and returned the same to the Complainant.

d).     The Complainant approached the OP-3, an authorised service provider of the OP-4, on 26.07.2018 for some alleged issued regarding the MacBook not powering on. The OP-3 diagnosed the device and found that the device was having corrosion damage and also the device was found with liquid damage in logic board of the MacBook. It is pertinent to mention that the Complainant was clearly informed that his device was found with corrosion and liquid damage and  it cannot be covered under the warranty. It is pertinent to mention that the OP-3 offered an out of warranty paid service to which the Complainant denied. A copy of the Delivery Report & photographs has been filed with reply as ANNEXURE-R3, where it is clearly mentioned that “During VMI (Visual Mechanical Inspection) test found Corrosion/ liquid damage in the logic board. So, as per Apple VMI guidelines user MacBook was not eligible for warranty services found logic board faulty MacBook returned to Customer after diagnosis and VMI”. Thereafter the Complainant never approached the OP-3.

e)       Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP-2 who diagnosed the device and found the same issues and offered an out of warranty paid quotation for the replacement of MacBook to which the Complainant denied/ refused. A copy of delivery Report dated 18.09.2018 has been filed as ANNEXURE-R4. Thereafter, the Complainant never approached/ visited the OP-2 anytime.

f)       the Complainant has breached the warranty by violating the terms and conditions of the warranty policy as per clause (d) to damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse fire, liquid contact, earthquake or other external cause;  issued by the OP-4. It is pertinent to mention that the accidental and liquid damages are strictly not covered under the warranty. The Complainant has not produced any sort of evidence in support of his claims. Whenever the Complainant visited the authorised service provider of the OP-4 for any issues in the device, they have provided the solution for the same. Since the device was under warranty, the OP-4 has been prompt in providing service by informing the Complainant about the status and conditions of the device by inspecting the said device when the Complainant visited them and so, there is no question of deficiency in service on the part of the OP-4.

g)       Complainant has not produced any sort of expert opinion to prove that the device was defective. The Complainant has not produced any evidence to show that the OP-4 will replace the device beyond the warranty policy or the device was defective with the warranty policy.

h).     OP-4 never denied any sort of service or assistance to the Complainant whenever he visited them and so the OP-4 cannot be held liable for any compensation to the Complainant for his own acts and omission. Hence, the OP-4 is not attributable for any sort replacement/ refund and compensation to the Complainant.

 

8.       The complainant and OPs have also filed evidence and arguments affirming their contentions. Accordingly, the complaint has been examined in view of the facts of the case and averments/documents/Evidence put forth by the complainant & OPs and it has been observed that:-

I.        The OP-3 , in its reply for para 3,4,5 & 6 of the allegations levelled in the complaint, have stated that being matter of record, the complainant should put strict proof to prove the same by way of documentary evidence whereas the complainant has already filed  Delivery challan dated 03/03/2018 issued by OP-2 (Annexure-B), Delivery Report dated 26-07-2018 issued by OP-3 (Annexure-C), Checking Report dated 16-08-2018 (Annexure-D), Invoice dated 18-09-2018 issued by the OP-2 (Annexure-E) and delivery challan dated 18-09-2018 issued by the OP-2 (Annexure-G) in support of the allegations and these documents/annexures have not been disputed.

II.            The OP-3 in Delivery Report dated 26-07-2018  (Annexure-C of the complaint), has mentioned corrosion/liquid Damage in the logic board but on 16.08.2018, iQor Global Service India Pvt. Ltd. Kamla Nagar Delhi/ OP-2  has carried out all the required checking at computer and told device is fine. Checking Report dated 16-08-2018 has been filed with complaint as Annexure-D and has not been rebutted by the OPs.

III.           The complainant alleged that the defects, claimed by the OPs, may have come while repairing at Service Centre/OP-2. It has also been alleged that the device has not been repaired/checked in front of the complainant or complainant fathers and has been kept in the service centres for considerable time. These allegations have not been rebutted by the OPs which corroborates the contention of the complainant.

 

IV.          The delivery challan/delivery reports are without the feedback of the complainant/customer/consumer about the repairs carried out.

 

V.            The OP-3&4 have also submitted photographs of the mother board/ components  prove the claimed defects in the device but could  not substantiate that these photographs pertains to the complainant’s device.

 

VI.          The defects started appearing within six months of purchase and the device was taken to service centres for rectifications of the defects but the OPs have not made any serious efforts to provide satisfactory service to the consumer with the intention to get the warranty period expired.

 

VII.         As per the allegations, the defects would have occurred due to the negligence and deficiency of the OP-2 but the OP-2 has chosen not to appear or reply to the allegations despite proper service. This appears to be planned strategy of the OP-3 & 4 to instruct OP-2 not to participate in the proceedings whereas OP-3&4 have referred             OP-2’role number of times in their replies to the allegations levelled in the complaint.

 

9.       In view of the above observations, we are of the considered view that the complainant has suffered directly due to deficient service of the OP-2, 3 & 4 in terms of the deficiency defined in the Act which includes  any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained in relation to any service and includes any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer. However, no deficiency in service has been observed on the part of OP-1.

10.     Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct the OP-4, being the manufacturer of the product, to replace the Macbook Air 13 with new one with one-year warranty from date of replacement alongwith compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rs.Five Thousand only) for the mental pain, agony and harassment, within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of this order. In case, it is not possible for OP-4 to replace the product as directed above, the OP-4 shall pay Rs.62070/- (Rupees Sixty Two housand Seventy only) within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 03-01-2019 (date of filing of complaint) till the date of the payment alongwith compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rs.Five Thousand only) for the mental pain, agony and harassment. It is clarified that if the abovesaid amount is not paid by the OP-4 to the Complainant within the period as directed above, the OP-4 shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days period. Since OP-2 & 3 were working for the OP-4, they are not liable to pay any compensation.

11.     Upon receipt of the payment of amount, as directed above, the complainant shall return the product/ Macbook Air 13  to OP-4.

12.     Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                               HARPREET KAUR CHARYA

                                                          Member                                                                     Member       

                                                   DCDRC-1 (North)                                               DCDRC-1 (North)     

                                                           

    DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

President

       DCDRC-1 (North)