`           STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                         U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                            (Additional Bench)

Reliance Retail Limited. Shop No.247, Second Floor, Elante Mall. Industrial and Business park, Phase-1. Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory Mr.Arunav Pankaj

                                                                                                            …Appellant

                                         V e r s u s

1. Kartik Garg S/o Sh. Madan Lal, House No.753. Sector-22-A, Chandigarh.
2. Apple India Private Limited, 19 Floor Concorde Tower C, UB City No.24 Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560-001 through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.
3.  F-1 Info Solutions & Services Pvt. Ltd, SCO NO.817-818. First Floor. Sector22-A Chandigarh through its Authorized Signatory/Managing Director.
4.  Unicorn Info Solutions Pvt.Ltd.. SCO NO.315-316, Ground Floor, Sector-35-B, Chandigarh through its Authorized Signatory/ Managing Director

                                                                                              ..Respondents

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 16.11.2023 passed by          District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.437/2022.

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                        MR.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Present   :       Sh. Sanjeev Pabbi,   Advocate for the appellant

                        Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.1

                        Sh.Manpreet S.Sawhney, Advocate alongwith

                        Sh.Rahul Garg, Advocate for respondent No.2

                        Respondents No.3 & 4 ex parte. 

 PER PADMA PANDEY,PRESIDING MEMBER

                       This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.11.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it allowed the complaint bearing No.CC/437/2022 partly by directing the Opposite Parties  as under ;

“In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly allowed qua OP No.1. OP No.1 is directed to refund the price of the laptop i.e. Rs.1,27,411/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its purchase till its actual realization. The complainant shall return the laptop in question along with its accessories to the OPs on receipt of the awarded amount.”

2.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the complainant/respondent No.1 that being a student, he  required a laptop for his day to day studies, as such, he purchased a laptop make Apple MAC Book Pro bearing serial No.SFVGW9ZWQ0SF from the appellant/O.P.NO.1 on 10.04.2022 vide invoice dated 10.04.2022 for Rs.1,27,411. The amount was paid through credit card. The said laptop/mac book was manufactured and marketed by OP-2 and was having one year warranty. On 12.04.2022, when the complainant switched on the laptop/mac book it was not having any display and he went to OP No.1 on the next day but it was closed. On 15.04.2022, he again visited OP No.1 who asked him to approach OP No.3 i.e. the Service Centre. He immediately approached OP No.3 on 16.04.2022, who checked the laptop and informed that the same would be repaired  and if the complainant wanted to get it replaced then he had to approach OP No.1 as the product could be replaced within 7 days from the date of sale as per policy of OP No.2. The complainant then took the laptop/macbook back from OP No.3 in order to get it replaced from OP No.1. The complainant approached OP No.1 who stated that the product cannot be replaced as the same can only be replaced within two days as per their policy but they failed to show any policy. It was alleged that the said fact was neither mentioned on the invoice, nor was informed to the complainant at the time of purchase. The complainant was advised to approach  OP No.4 i.e. another service centre. When the complainant  approached O.P No.4 on 18.04.2022, it  also showed its inability to replace the laptop. The complainant then sent an e-mail on 18.04.2022 to OP No.1 and they sought 48 hrs time to resolve the issue. The complainant again visited OP No.1 and  they sought further 4-5 days time for replacement but no information was provided to complainant till 30.04.2022.    An email was sent on 01.05.2022 by the sister of the complainant, which was replied by OP No.1 on 02.05.2022 stating that they are in touch with O.P No.2 and they will get back to the complainant on priority. When nothing was heard, again sister of the complainant  sent an  email dated 04.05.2022 but  neither the product was replaced, nor its price was refunded. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission seeking refund of the price of the laptop with interest, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.

3.                  Pursuant to issuance of notice, the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3  appeared before the Ld. District Commission and contested the complaint. In its written version, Opposite Party No.1 took up the plea that it is  only a retailer and has no role to play in replacement or rectification of defects in the Apple Macbook Pro  in question. It was further stated that after billing, the MacBook was completely checked and examined by the complainant and it was working fine.  When the complainant visited the store of OP NO.1, he was guided to visit the Apple Authorized Centre- OP No.3 for the solution.  The decision of replacement is done by the manufacturer only. Maintainability of the complaint against Opposite Party No.1 was questioned and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint by stating it  totally false, vague and was filed just to get wrongful gains.  

4.                 In its written version, OP No.2 also  took similar preliminary objections as were taken by OP No.1. It has been stated that OP No.2 is engaged in the business of selling/ offering for sale Apple hardware products which inter-alia, includes iPhone smartphones, iPad tablet, computers, and Macbook personal computers by its authorized resellers directly to consumers with whom it operates on  strictly "principal to principal" basis. It was further stated  that the complainant purchased an "Apple MacBook Pro" laptop (subject laptop on 10.04.2022  from OP No.1, accompanied by a one year standard manufacturer warranty ("Apple Warranty issued by OP No.2). As per the invoice attached with the complaint, no extended warranty was purchased by the complainant. It was further stated that on  16.04.2022, the Complainant approached OP No.3, an authorized service provider  of OP2, alleging that the display was not turning on even after the device was switched on. After inspecting the laptop, the Complainant was informed that there was a hardware issue in the laptop which could be repaired, free of cost, since the product was under warranty provided by it. However, the Complainant refused to take advantage of the repair by OP No.3 under OP No.2's warranty. Thereafter, the subject laptop was returned to the  Complainant by OP No.3. It was  further stated that pursuant to the repair services offered by OP No.3, OP-4 also offered to repair the hardware issue in the subject laptop which was within warranty. However, the Complainant once again refused to take advantage of the repair by OP No.4 under OP-2's warranty. Thereafter, the subject laptop was returned to the Complainant by OP-3. On merits, it was denied that the subject laptop was purchased on 10.04.2022, however, as per the Tax Invoice, it appears that the subject laptop was purchased/delivered on 11.04.2022.  It was further stated that as per the records of OP-2, the date of purchase of the subject laptop is 05.02.2022 and not 10.04.2022 as being claimed by the Complainant. OP No.2 further stated that the complainant did not visit OP-1 on 15th April but had a telephonic discussion with them on 16th April 2022. It has been denied that OP-2 was having   7 days or 14 days return policy but when a valid claim is submitted under warranty, OP-2 shall either repair, replace or refund the purchase price of the product at its own discretion. The Complainant was informed that the laptop could be repaired free of cost, since the product was under warranty provided by OP-2 but the complainant did not approach for the same. Denying remaining allegations, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint against it. 

5.              Opposite Party No.3 also filed written version to the complaint and took similar preliminary objections as were taken by OPs No.1 & 2. It was stated that  when the product was checked, it was  found that device was powering on but there was no display and it was told to the complainant that the display module needed replacement  but he refused to get replaced the parts, and wanted  replacement of the whole unit. Accordingly the product was returned without repair to the complainant alongwith a job sheet.   It was pleaded that OP No.3 had  no role/knowledge and idea regarding the product warranty date because the full one year warranty is only provided by the manufacturer and the seller.   Denying all other  allegations against them, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint  by OP No.3.

6.           Opposite Party No.4 did not appear before the Learned Lower Commission despite due service, hence it was proceeded against ex parte.

7.                    On appraisal of the pleadings, and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission partly allowed the Complaint of Respondent No.1/ Complainant, as noticed in the opening para of this order.   

8.              Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

9.                      We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties  and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

10.                 The main ground urged in the appeal by the appellant is that  being a retail seller, its involvement is limited regarding sale of the product only  and it has no role to play in replacement or rectification of defects in the product.  In case there was any manufacturing defect in the product, its manufacturer is liable to replace the product.  It was  contended  that the product in question was never sold on 5.2.2022 as alleged by respondent No.2. No record/document has been produced on record by respondent No.2 to prove that the laptop was resold to the complainant/respondent No.1, despite availing a number of opportunities before the Ld. Lower Commission.  It was further contended  that there is a plethora of judgments wherein it is held that for any manufacturing defect in the product, the dealer cannot be held liable and the liability must be borne by the manufacturer. In support of his contention the learned Counsel for the appellant referred to a  judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs N. Siva Kumar (2000) 10 SCC 654 .

11.                 As regards the date of sale of the product on 5.2.2022, it was contended  on behalf of respondent No.2  that it was never the case of respondent No.2 that the complainant/respondent No.1 was sold a second-hand product by the appellant. Before the Ld. Lower Commission it merely mentioned that as per their records, the date of purchase of the product was 5.2.2022 and not 10.4.2022. Subsequently respondent No.2 has requested the complainant to furnish a copy of the invoice in order to get the date of purchase updated but as the copy was not provided, hence the details could not be updated by respondent  No.2. It was so stated in  reply to the appeal filed  by respondent No.2. It was further contended  that the manufacturing defect can be proved only by way of cogent and adequate evidence supported by the opinion of an expert and the onus of proving the same lies on the complainant/respondent No.1 but the complainant has failed to place on record any evidence to allege manufacturing in the subject laptop.

12.              It is not proved on record that the laptop was resold to the  complainant on 11.4.2022. The record of respondent No.2 was not updated, as such it made a mention before the Ld. Lower Commission that the laptop in question was earlier sold to someone on 5.2.2022 and then resold to respondent No.1/complainant. Thus the finding of the Ld. Lower Commission to hold the appellant deficient in service and indulging into unfair trade practice on the ground of resale of the product in question merely on the saying of the Counsel that the laptop was resold to the complainant, is not correct.  Further it has come on record that when respondent No.1 visited respondent No.3/OP No.3, where laptop in question was checked and it was found that the device is powering on but there was no display and it was reported that display module needed replacement  but the complainant insisted for replacement of the whole unit. Thus, it proves that there was some defect in the new purchased laptop.   

13.                   The laptop/MacBook was sold vide invoice dated 10.4.2022 and it was delivered to  the complainant on 11.4.2022.  When the laptop did not work,  respondent No.1 contacted the appellant on 15.4.2022.  Annexure C-12 is copy of the Cancellation and return policy of  the products of the Reliance Retail Limited wherein it is clearly mentioned that “you may initiate the request for replacement of the product within 7 days from the time the Product is delivered to you(Replacement period). Further Annexure C-13 is copy of the Standard Return Policy of the  Apple products wherein it is mentioned that “you have 14 calendar days to return an item from the date you received it” and regarding the products purchased from other retailers it is described that “only items that have been purchased directly from Apple, either online or at any Apple Retail Store, can be returned to Apple. Apple products purchased through other retailers must be returned in accordance with their respective returns and refunds policy”. It is admitted case of the parties that respondent No.1/complainant approached the appellant as well as the authorized service centres of the manufacturer within seven days from the date of delivery of the laptop/Macbook. In case, it was found defective, the same should have been replaced with a new one but the respondent/complainant No.1 was made to run from pillar to post. The Laptop/Macbook manufactured by respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 was sold by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 and they both can not absolve from their liability to replace or refund the price, if the product was found defective. As such, the appellant as well as respondent No.2 are held jointly and severally liable to refund the price of the laptop alongwith interest, as ordered by  the Ld. Lower Commission. Respondent No.1/complainant shall return the laptop in question alongwith its accessories to the appellant on receipt of the awarded amount.

14.                For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted and the impugned order is modified to the extent as stated in para-13  of this order. 

15.                   Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of

16.                  Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

17.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.