DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.251/20
Mr. Rakesh Kumar
S/o Shri V.P. Goel
Address – Farm No.10 Green Meadows Satbari
Chattarpur, New Delhi-110074. .…Complainant
VERSUS
Apple India Pvt. Ltd.
19th Floor, Concorde Tower C
UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road
Bangalore-560001.
Email id –
Address – M-62, Ground Floor, Main Market
Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi-110048.
Also at:
Registered Address 2nd Floor Orchid Centre
Sector-53, Gurugram-122001. ….Opposite Parties
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Date of Institution:18.12.2020
Date of Order :26.12.2023
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
Complainant has filed the present complaint for directions to OP-1 to replace the defective Macbook Pro or to refund Rs.2,03,000/- along with the interest @18% per annum from the date of filing till realisation. Complainant also seeks Rs.50,000/- for deficient services, mental agony etc. with interest @18% per annum and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses. OP-1 is Apple India Limited and OP-2 is Zenica Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd.
- It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a Macbook Pro 15 inch from OP-2 and paid a sum of Rs.2,03,000/- for his personal use on 18.08.2017. It is further stated that on 07.09.2020 complainant noticed a display problem where the screen would only work at limited angle approximately 40 degree of opening. It is further stated that upon researching the complainant came to know that this is a prevalent and common problem in Macbook Pro particularly, models manufactured by OP-1 between 2016 to 2018 regardless of their model size. This problem is widely recognised by various independent agencies and is known “Flexgate” problem.
- It is stated by the complainant that OP-1 had determined the Flexgate issue on 21.05.2019 and offered free service problem for Apple-13 Macbook Pro only.
“affected devices sold between October 2016 and February 2018”, Apple or an Apple Authorised service provider with service effected Macbook Pro units, free of charge and the programme covers eligible Macbook Pro Models for four years after the first retail sale of the unit”.
It is the case of the complainant that though OP-1 has launched a free service programme for 13 inch pro models, they have chosen to ignore the exact same problem in the 15 inch Macbook Pro models and this being discrimination amounts to unfair trade practice as per Consumer Protection Act 2019. Copy of the free service programme dated 21.05.2019 is annexed as Annexure-2.
- It is further stated that on 08.09.2020 when the complainant contacted OP 2 for repair of the Macbook Pro he was told that it would require Rs.50,000/-. Complainant requested numerous times to replace/repair stating that it is a manufacturing defect.
- It is stated by the complainant that vide email dated 24.09.2020 sent by the executive of OP-1 it is admitted as under
“We investigated this and can confirm Macbook Pro display backlight service programme is only eligible for 2016 13 inch computers. The 15 inch computer mentioned by our client is not eligible or covered under this programme. This service programme only covers a specific failure accepted on the 13 inch 2016 MBP. Your Apple Authorised Service Provider, Zeneca Lifestyle had appropriately offered the billable service for the Macbook Pro (15 inch, 2017) CO2TVG0HHTD6 purchased in 2017. Apple is unable to meet your client request”.
Copy of the said email dated 24.09.2020 is Annexure- 3.
- It is the case of the complainant that OPs have failed to replace the defective Macbook Pro which has caused mental agony, pain etc. to the complainant and therefore they are liable to pay for all the losses suffered by the complainant.
- In their reply, OP-1 have stated that instant complaint is patently false and devoid of any merits. OP-1 has relied on their warranty clause and have stated that Macbook Pro in the case of the complainant is rendered out of warranty since it is damaged and hence it cannot be serviced/ replaced under warranty.
- OP further states the customer service of OP-1 had clearly explained to the complainant that the Macbook Pro replaceable backlight service programme is only eligible for 2016 13 inch computers and the 15 inch computer of the complainant is not covered under this programme. It is stated this service programme only covers a specific failure accepted on the 13 inch 2016 MBP.
- It is alleged by OP-1 that complainant has suppressed that he himself damaged his Macbook Pro and is solely attributable to his own actions which are in breach of the terms of Apple warranty. It is stated damage to the complainant’s device cannot be labelled as manufacturing defect. It is stated by the OP that the complainant has failed to explain on what basis or authority is he claiming that the Macbook pro computers have manufacturing defect. OP-1 further denies that there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part.
- Notice issued to OP-2 was not served and fresh address was not provided by the complainant. In his rejoinder, complainant has stated that OP-1 is nearly using a tactic to confuse by going into the technicalities of its warranty policy and have chosen to ignore the problem of Flexgate in 15 inch Macbook Pro. Complainant has not denied damage being done to his Macbook Pro.
- In its written arguments, OP-1 has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in TATA Motors vs. Sujit Kaur wherein it was held that adherence to the instructions contained in the warranty manual is pre-requisite for admission of case of manufacturing defect. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble SCDRC, Tamilnadu in N.R. Jayachandran vs. Ford India Ltd. and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.N. Anantraman vs. Fiat India Ltd. wherein it was held that as the consumer has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the product, he is not liable to claim compensation for the same.
This Commission has gone through the entire material on record and have heard oral submissions of both the parties i.e. complainant as well as OP-1. Complainant has relied on the fact that his laptop suffers from the defect known as “Flexgate” but he has not produced any document on record to prove the same. It has remained an allegation. Complainant has relied on the Macbook Pro display backlight service programme of the OP however, he has not been able to convince this Commission that his case qualifies for rectification/repair in this programme.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SGS India Limited vs Dolphin International AIR 2021 SC 4849 has held the following:
“The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the Respondent in the complaint.”
It is therefore, upon the complainant to initially discharge its onus to prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP. This Commission has gone through the pleadings and documents filed by the complainant and find that complainant has not been able to discharge this onus. Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merits.
Copy of the order be provided to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
