Delhi

North

CC/31/2019

Dr. JATIN KARLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. IQOR GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

SANJAY KUMAR ROY

06 Apr 2023

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.: 31/2019

Jatin Kalra

S/o Dr.Gulshan Kalra

R/o C-4/6, Ground Floor

Rana Pratap Bagh, New Delhi-110007                                …Complainant

                                                                           

VS

  M/s.IQOR  Global Services India Private Limited

Through its Managing Director Mr.Sanjay Vidyarthi

  At :

Shop No.107, First Floor

Spark Mall, Kamla Nagar

New Delhi-110007                                                     …Opposite Party No.1

 

  M/s. Apple India Private Limited

Through its Wholetime Director

Mr. Gaurav Duggal

At

19^th floor, Concorde Tower C,

UB City, No.24

Vittal Mallya Road

Bangalore-560001                                                       …Opposite Party No.2

         

ORDER

06/04/2023

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member:-

Jurisdiction of this commission has been invoked by Dr. Jatin Kalra, the complainant against M/s IQOR Global Services India Private Ltd., the authorised service centre, as OP-1 and M/s Apple India Private Ltd., the manufacturer as OP-2. 

1. Facts necessary for the disposal of the present complaint are that, the complainant had purchased an Apple MacBook Pro (S.No.CO2JAP9CDTY4) in the month of September 2012.  It has been stated by the complainant that, on 22/10/2018, the MacBook was handed over to OP-1with the complaint of the track pad not working.  One of the employee of OP-2 namely, Mr. Kesar telephonically informed that the problem in the track pad was due to operating system update. The complainant has averred that the software update of “Mojave OS” was done around 25/09/2018 and since then the MacBook was working properly.
2. The complainant requested Mr.Kesar to run the diagnostics to find out if there was any hardware issue and also agreed to pay Rs. 2,500/- as diagnostics fee.  On next day, the complainant was informed that the track pad needed to be changed as the operating system was fine and an e-mail for approval has been sent to the complainant but the same has not received by the complainant till date. The complainant was asked to pay Rs.8,700/- as replacement charges of track pad and Rs.2,500/- for diagnostics and to collect the Mac Book next day.
3. On 24/10/2018, the complainant was again informed that the same issue of track pad had re-occurred and now it was the error in operating system for which “OS Sierra” was to be reinstalled to which the complainant agreed.  In the evening, the complainant was informed that the problem still subsisted and the mother board had become defective thus required replacement.
4. The complainant was informed by the above named Mr. Kesar that the ‘MacBook’ was working fine with external mouse therefore, he would makeshift arrangement by taking out two wires from the board and put a port on it to which external mouse can be used. Thereafter, the complainant was asked to pay Rs.42,000/- on account of repairs.  The complainant was assured by the Manager of OP-1 that the issue would be resolved within 3-4 days but despite lapse of two weeks nothing happened.
5. On 03/11/2018 the complainant received another email informing that the ‘MacBook’ was ready to be collected however, when the complainant tried to contact OP-1 he was informed that the same problem existed for which the complainant was required to pay the amount in advance.
6. The complainant tried to contact Mr. Anand, the manager of OP-1 and Mr. Kesar, but they not only misbehaved but threatened the complainant with dire consequences.  OP-2 was informed through email dated 19/12/2018 and 20/12/2018 but all in vain. 
7. As the MacBook is still lying with OP-1, the complainant has filed the present complaint with the prayer for directions to OPs to repair and return the MacBook without any cost of repair/service charges; payment of damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-; compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and financial torture along with Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.
8. The complainant has annexed the service call report dated 22/10/2018, email dated 22/10/201, 3/11/2018, 17/11/2018; copy of legal notice dated 23/11/2018 along with postal receipt and email dated 19/12/2018, 20/12/2018 and 17/01/2019 along with the complaint.
9. Notice of the present complaint was issued to OP-1 only. However, Written statement was filed by OP-2 on behalf of OP-1, several objections have been taken by them in their defence such as: the complaint was abuse of due process of law, the laptop sold by OP-2 are of cutting edge technology and they undergo strict quality check to maintain high standard and the commission did not have territorial jurisdiction as OP-2 was located in Bangalore.
10. It has been submitted that the provisions and terms of the Apple warranty specifically excluded damage products which was in the present case.  They have relied upon the warranty condition as hereunder:

“ HOW TO OBTAIN WARRANTY SERVICE”

Please access and review the online help resources described below before seeking warranty service.If the Apple product still not functioning properly after making use of these resources, please contact an Apple representative or, if applicable, an Apple own retail store (“Apple Retail”) or AASP, using the information provided below. An Apple representative or AASP will help determine whether your Apple Product requires service and, if it does, will inform you how Apple will provide it.When contacting Apple via telephone, other charges may apply depending on your location.

This warranty does not apply:

1. …………….;
2. …………….;
3. To damage caused by use with a third party component or product that does not meet the Apple Product’s  specifications (Apple Product specifications are available at www.apple.com under the technical specifications for each product and also available in stores);
4. …………..;
5. …………..;
6. to damage caused by service (including upgrade and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or an Apple Authorised Service Provider (“AASP”)

 

Therefore, as per the above warranty condition, the alleged damaged caused to the I-phone (sic) on account of negligent misuse of the product by the complaint rendered it out of warranty and the alleged damage was not attributable to OP-2.

11. It has been admitted that the complainant had approached OP-1, the Authorised Service Provider of OP-2 on 22/10/2018 with the problem in the track pad.  The OP-1 diagnosed the issue and by performing the macOS reinstallation, the issue was resolved.  However, the track pad issued persisted and the ASP diagnosed the device and suggested that track pad and MLB needed to be replaced.  The complainant was offered out of warranty paid service to which the complainant agreed but later denied to make payment in advance for repair.   It has also been admitted that the laptop is with OP-1 as the complainant did not collect the same.
12. It has been further submitted that the complainant is negligent in handling device and the issue was not due to manufacturing defect and deficiency in services.  No expert opinion was produced to prove the defect. 
13. It has also been admitted that the complainant was asked to make payment of Rs.42,000/- as the MLB of the device was to be replaced.  Rest of the content of the complaint have been denied.  They have annexed the Apple one year limited Warranty and Service Call Report dated 22/10/2018 as Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2. 
14. Rejoinder on behalf of the complainant to the written statement of OP was filed, where the contents of the complaint have been reaffirmed and those of the written statement have been denied.  It is submitted that “M/s. Apple India Pvt. Ltd.”(OP-2) are vicariously liable for the act /omission on the part of OP-1. The complainant never asked for free warranty on his MacBook , in fact had opted for paid service from the authorised service centre. It has been specifically submitted that at the time of giving the MacBook for repair to OP-1 the product of the complainant was out of warranty and not at all damaged but needed repair.  The complainant was initially informed that the track pad needed replacement, for which complainant agreed to pay Rs.11,200/- including diagnostic charges.  It has been denied that the complainant refused to pay service charges at any point of time; it was only when the OP-1 suggested replacing and changing of the motherboard then the complainant challenged the quality of paid services provided by OP-1 and OP-2.
15. Evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by the complainant, where the contents of the complaint have been reaffirmed. He has got exhibited the documents annexed with the complaint. The copy of the service call report dated 22/10/2018 as Ex.PW 1/1, the email communications with OP as Ex. PW1/2 (Colly), the e-mail communications with OP-2 as Ex. PW 1/3 (colly), the copy of legal notice dated 23/11/2018 along with two original postal receipts as Ex.PW 1/4 (colly).
16. Sh. Priyesh Poovanna, Authorised Signatory and Country Legal Counsel, Apple India Ltd. has been examined on behalf of OP-2.  He has got exhibited the copy of the extracts of Board Resolution authorising him as Annexure R-1, the applicable warranty provisions and terms as Annexure R-2and a copy of the service report dated 22/10/2018 as Annexure R-2(sic).  The contents of the written statement have been repeated in the affidavit.
17. We have heard the arguments of the Ld. Counsels for the complainant and OP-2.  We have gone through the written submission filed by the parties and also perused the material placed on record.   The complainant has alleged that he had handed over his MacBook to OP-1 for repair which was out of warranty on 22/10/2018, an undisputed fact.  It is not the case of allegations of manufacturing defect but a case where manufacturer failed to repair the product and provide after sale services as evident from the emails exchanged with OP (Ex.PW1/3).  In an email dated 17/11/2018, the complainant has stated that for last 06 years he has been using the MacBook Pro (S.No.C02J8P9CDTY4), thus, it is clear that the Complainant has been using the product manufactured by OP-2 without any problem. The complainant has alleged that the MacBook was given for repair to OP-1, where an estimated cost of repairs was Rs.11,200/- (cost of track pad Rs.8,700/- and Rs.2,500/- as diagnostics fee ).   A look is to be made at  the Service Call Report dated 22/10/2018 (Ex.PW1/1),where the general problem reported by customer is TRACK PAD  MISBEHAVING and the column Diagnosis Details is blank/empty,  at the same time the service report of the same date has been filed by the OP (Annexure R-2),where the Diagnosis Details bear “Machine diagnosed ___(illegible)__  test passed check with known___(illegible)__ as problem same  Track pad Faulty ___(illegible)__  MLB faulty need to be replaced”
18. As per email dated 19/12/2018, the complainant has even alleged that no diagnosis was provided to the complainant after submission of his laptop. Even, the diagnosis was not done in his presence. Thus, the comparison of Ex. PW1/1 and Annexure R-2 support the case of the Complainant that the MacBook was not checked in his presence and  OP-1 has reported one problem after another to the complainant.
19. On the other hand, OP-2 claims to be providing excellent customer services, however, no Diagnostic report has been filed by them, despite the fact that complainant has alleged that no report has been shared with him. The Complainant has right to know what is he being charged for, merely mentioning on the service call report without  any report to substantiate the diagnosis amounts  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
20.  It is important to note that the MacBook has been used by the complainant for almost 06 years and thereafter, it has been lying with OP-1 since, 22/10/2018 without repairs, considering as considerable period of 11 years have passed and to settle the dispute we feel appropriate that an amount of Rs.45,000/- shall be just an equitable as the depreciated value of the MacBook.   The same cannot be granted as the product was out of warranty.  At the same time this fact also cannot be ignored that the   OP-1 has indulged in deficiency in services and unfair trade practice as discussed above, therefore, the complainant is entitled to compensation.   
21. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint and in the interest of justice we hold OP-1 liable to pay an amount of Rs.45,000/- as the depreciated cost of the MacBook and compensation of Rs.25,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment, inclusive of  litigation expenses. 
22. This order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of this order else Rs.70,000/- (Rs.45,000/- + Rs. 25,000/-) shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules.  Order be also uploaded on the website. 

Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member

(Ashwani Kumar Mehta) Member

                                                         

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

                                                        President