SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT

         This complaint has been   filed by the complainant ,under sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, against opposite parties for getting an order to replace the defective laptop with a new one or else return the amount of Rs.1,90,000/- the  value of laptop,  to  pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-  and cost of the proceedings of the case.

   Facts of the case are that the complainant  had purchased  Apple Mac book pro 16” 2019 model laptop bearing IMEL No.CO2ZJ7GDMD6P on 16/12/2019 from Dubai  by paying Rs.1,90,000/- .1st OP is the manufacturer of the Apple products and 2^nd OP is the  authorized dealer and service centre of 1^st OP, immediately  after the purchase, complainant  started  from home with laptop  , realized that the laptop did not  have the battery backup as promised by the 1^st OP and he  complained  to  1^st OP customer  support and the OPs have registered a complaint on 17/1/2020, but the OPs are not responding properly for almost  two months.  Even though complainant contacted Apple customer service  many times and the  OPs registered a complaint  thereon, the OPs could not solve the issue and finally said laptop stopped working on 24/3/2020.  Though complainant was trying to contact OPs , it could not reach due to the  lockdown and finally on 11/5/2020 complainant went to 2^nd OP to repair  work of laptop.  But while collecting laptop on 22/6/2020 after repair work, complainant had found that there is a dent on the laptop and he refused to accept the same, but staff of 2^nd OP informed about the  apple terms and condition No.11, ie all repaired products should be collected within two weeks from the date of intimation through  mail/sms.  In case of delay Rs.100/- will be charged for every extra day, if the product is not collected within 2 weeks from the last date of the penalty period of 2 weeks, the same  will be considered junk and disposed.  So complainant was constrained to collect the laptop.  According to complainant it was only due to the careless and negligent  act of 2^nd OP that the laptop got dented.  Moreover it took 40 days to get it repaired  and the unnecessary delay and irresponsibility also amounts to gross deficiency in service. The complainant submits that the laptop suffers from manufacturing defect which cannot be rectified, it became defective within days from purchase. Since the laptop has not been working for the  last nine months, complainant was not able to work from home. The main  complaint of the laptop is with its battery. The 1^st OP is liable to replace the defective  laptop with new one or else return  the amount of Rs.1,90,000/- with compensation . Hence this complaint.

  Notices were served to the OPs , but in spite of  notice 2^nd OP did not contested the case  nor  filed any written version and the  case was proceeded with ex-parte against 2^nd OP . 1^st OP  contested the case and submitted that   on April 2020 the complainant  approached  customer care service of 1^st  OP with issues pertaining  to battery of the  device.   The customer care executive gave various  trouble shooting options to the complainant over the phone call to solve the issue.  However, the complainant was not ready to co-operate with the  service of 1^st  OP and consistently insisted on  approaching  the Apple authorized service centre.   Thereafter the complainant repeatedly called the customer care service of 1^st  OP  and sought for refund of the  amount along with compensation.  Pursuant to which, on 11/5/2020, the complainant approached the 2^nd OP with the issue pertaining to device not working.  The 2^nd OP issued a repair acceptance form  capturing the time, date and condition of the device while accepting the device of the complainant.  Upon diagnosis , the issue was confirmed by the 2^nd OP .  As the parts of the device to be replaced were not available with the AASP, the 2^nd OP had to place the order of  same with the 1^st OP.  Due to the  current pandemic situation, there was a lock down imposed  in the  entire country, there was limited staff working in the  company and the 2^nd OP could not get the ordered parts in time  until the lockdown was lifted. On 17/6/2020 the 2^nd OP  informed the complainant that the device is repaired under warranty by replacing the main logic board and touch ID and on that date the complainant the collected  device and endorsed  his signature  of acknowledgment.  Thereafter, the complainant revisited the 2^nd OP  on September 2020 and  reported  restarting and heating issue, the 2^nd OP ran the diagnostic and found no issues in the device.  The complainant is not entitled  to get any amount since there is no deficiency in service on the part of  2^nd OP.  Hence prayed for the  dismissal of  the complaint.  

       Complainant  filed his proof affidavit and documents. Examined as PW1, and the documents got marked Exts.A1 to A6 series.  While pending  of  this case, complainant has taken steps to appoint an expert commissioner to examine the Laptop in dispute and to submit report.  As per the application Mr.Ramees.K is appointed as expert commissioner to inspect the laptop and  to file report.  The expert inspected the product in dispute in the presence of both parties and filed a report, which was marked as Ext.C1.  1^st OP  has filed  objection  to Ext.C1. PW1 was cross examined by 1^st OP.  After that  though contracts Manager of 1^st OP filed his  chief affidavit, he has not turned up to tender evidence.  Hence his chief affidavit cannot be  taken as evidence of 1^st OP.  On the side of  1^st OP warranty card was produced and marked as Ext.B1.

   On perusal of Ext.B1 , the manufacturer of  the product arrayed as 1^st OP, has produced one year warranty to the product in dispute.  There is no dispute regarding the purchase of the laptop in question by the complainant on 16/12/2019.  Complainant’s allegation is that he had purchased the lap top for an amount of Rs.1,90,000/-.  Further alleged that immediately after the purchase within 2 months the laptop did not have the battery backup as promised by the Apple company and registered a complaint on 17/1/2020 but the OPs are not responding properly for about two months.  Complainant further alleged that, though he had contacted 2^nd OP service centre many times and registered complaint therein, OPs could not rectify the defect and finally the product stopped working on 24/3/2020.  Then the  lap top was entrusted to 2^nd OP for repair work.  After the repair work it was collected on 22/6/2020 ie, after 40 days but the complaint is frequently occurring.  Complainant alleged that the main complaint of the laptop is with its battery and after the repair work, the product had found  dent on it. Complainant alleged manufacturing defect of the product.

   For proving the said allegation the expert has been  appointed.  On perusal of expert opinion(Ext.C1), it is observed by expert that there is defect of battery backup and 40% default in backup than offered by the company and heating complaint  of battery when it put on charging and the finger system was not functioning properly and  defective touch bar.  Expert observed and opined that the product has manufacturing defect.

   In the version  1^st OP also admitted that the product shows  defects and become  not working within the warranty period and also admits that the complainant,  complained to battery of the product.  OPs claimed that they repaired the product, free of cost and hence there is no deficiency in service on their part.

   But the expert opined that the product has manufacturing defect.  The said findings of the expert was not discarded by the OP by examining the expert.  Mere contentions in the objection is not sufficient.  Ext.A5 series and A6 series reveal that the complainant had tried to  send many messages to the OPs about the complaint of the lap top.

   Taking over all view of the  matter, we are of the opinion that in the above mentioned circumstances when the  Laptop have become defective immediately(within months) after purchase, in that circumstances the  agony and inconvenience of the consumers cannot be imagined  when the consumer had purchased something for doing his day to day work.  So in the even when a product is found  to be defective at the very beginning  observed as manufacturing defect, it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because  if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if develops the defect again then the  consumer will be put much larger harassment.

   In view  of all the facts and circumstances of the case and above, we direct the opposite parties 1&2 to refund the value of the Laptop Rs.1,90,000/- to the complainant.  Opposite parties 1&2  are also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards cost of the proceedings of this case. Opposite parties 1&2 are jointly and severally   comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  Failing which the awarded amount  except  cost, will  carry  interest @7% per annum from the date of order till realization.  Complainant can execute the order  as per provision of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  

Exts:

A1-Repair acceptance form

A2- Copy of lawyer notice

A3& A4- Acknowledgment card

A5&A6 series- G mail communications (8 in Nos)

Ext.C1- Expert  report

PW1-Jabir.T.C- complainant

Sd/                                                   Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                       /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR