Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/437/2022

Kartik Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Gaurav Bhardwaj

16 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	437/2022
Date of Institution	:	18.05.2022
Date of Decision	:	16.11.2023

 

                   

 

Kartik Garg S/o Sh. Madan Lal, House No.753. Sector-22-A, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

Versus

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

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-35-8, Chandigarh through its Authorized Signatory/ Managing Director

…. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Present:-
	Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for the complainant Sh.Sanjeev Pabbi, Counsel for OP No.1 Sh.Rahul Garg, Adv. proxy for Sh.Manpreet Sawhney, Counsel for OP No.2. Sh.Devinder Kumar, Counsel for OP No.3. OP No.4 exparte.

   

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.     The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 pleading therein that he  is a student and 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 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 and the said mac book has been manufactured and marketed by OP-2. The said laptop is having one year warranty. On 12.04.2022 when the complainant switched on the laptop/macbook it didn't had any display and he went to OP No.1 on the next day but it was closed. On 15.04.2022, he 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 they will not replace the laptop but repair the same and if he 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 sell as per policy of OP No.2. However, the complainant 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 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. The said fact was neither mentioned on the invoice nor informed to the complainant at the time of purchase. The complainant was advised to go to OP No.4 i.e. another service centre and he approached O.P.no.4 on 18.04.2022 but they also showed inability to replace the laptop. The complainant 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 and the sister of the complainant sent an email on 01.05.2022, the email 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 complainant on priority. OP No.1 again became silent and the sister of the complainant again sent email dated 04.05.2022. It has been averred that none of the OPs honoured the policy clause and they neither replaced the product nor refund the price thereof despite emails.  Hence, the complainant was forced to file the present complaint seeking refund of the price of the laptop with interest, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.
2.     After service of notice upon OP No.1, they appeared before this Commission and filed their written version taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is totally false, vague and has been filed just to get wrongful gains. It has been stated that they are only retailer and has no role to play in replacement or rectification of defects in the Apple Macbook Pro  in question. On merits, they denied all the facts mentioned in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.
3.     OP No.2 also filed written version to the complaint and 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 they operates on a strictly "principal to principal" basis. OP No.2 submitted that the complainant purchased an "Apple MacBook Pro" laptop (subject laptop on 10.04.2022  from OP No.1, accompanied by a one (1) 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 has been admitted that on 16.04.2022, the Complainant approached OP No.3, an AASP of OP2, alleging that the display is 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 Complainant by OP No.3. It has 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 Complainant by OP-3. On merits, it was denied that the subject laptop was purchased on 10.04.2022. As per the Tax Invoice, it appears that the subject laptop was purchased/delivered on 11.04.2022. 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 15^th April but had a telephonic discussion with them on 16^th April 2022. It has been denied that OP-2 has  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 all the allegations against them, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made by OP No.2.
4.     OP No.3 also filed written version to the complaint and took similar preliminary objections as were taken by OPs No.1 & 2. It has been submitted that when they checked the product and found that device is powering on but there is no display and told to the complainant that the display module needs to be replaced but he refused to replace the parts and wanted to replacement of whole unit after that the product returned without repair to complainant and they also gave the job sheet. It has further been stated that the complainant is seeking whole unit replacement which is not possible from their side and they guided the complainant to reach back to their manufacturer i.e. OP-2 & seller i.e. OP-1 for further replacement. It has further been stated that they have no role/knowledge and idea regarding the product warranty date because the full one year warranty is only provided by the manufacturer and seller and they manage and provide the full product warranty and not OP No.3. Further warranty limitation period of the said product is related to OP No.1 and 2 hence they could give the best possible answer to the complainant. Denying all the allegations against them, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made by OP No.3.
5.     The complainant filed separate replications to the written replies of the contesting OPs controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
6.     Despite due service through speed post, OP No.4 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.11.2022.
7.     The parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
8.     We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.
9.         The main issue involved in the present case is whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs in selling the laptop make Apple Macbook in question or not?
10.     In order to find out answer to the above mentioned issue, it is important to take into consideration the following facts and circumstances of the present complaint:-
11.     The complainant has alleged that the latop in question started malfunctioning within the first week of its purchase and this fact has virtually admitted by OPs No.2 and 3 in their written replies. 
12.     In para No.4 of the written reply on merits, OP No.2 has stated that when a valid claim is submitted under warranty, OP No.2 shall either repair, replace or refund the purchase price of the product at its own discretion.  So it is clear that there is every possibility of repair/replacement and refund of the price of the product in question but at the discretion of OP No.2.  The said discretion should not be exercised arbitrarily but it should be used keeping in view the best interests of the consumers, on the purchase value of whom, the whole market revolves.  When the product has not been working within few days of its purchase then instead of repairing one of its part, it is desirable that the product should be replaced with a new one as there is no fault on the part of the consumer in buying a new product. Moreover, para 2 of the reply on merits is very important in which  OP No.2 has stated that as per records of OP-2 the date of purchase of the subject laptop is 05.02.2022 and not 10.04.2022 which itself clarifies that the product was sold on 05.02.2022 to someone and thereafter it was resold to the complainant on 10.04.2022. The invoice placed on record by the complainant as Annexure C-1 shows the date of delivery as 11.04.2022 meaning thereby that the same was delivered to the complainant on 11.04.2022 whereas it was sold on 05.02.2022 as stated in the written version.  However, OP No.2 did not mention that to whom it was sold on 05.02.2022.  Thus, OP No.1 has not only committed deficiency in service but also committed unfair trade practice by reselling the product to the complainant, without disclosing him this factor. This amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.3.
13.         OP No.3 in para 6 of the preliminary objections has stated that when checked the product and found that device is powering on but no display and told to the complainant that the display module needs to be replaced but the complainant refused to replace the parts and wanted to replacement of whole unit after that the product returned without repair to complainant and they also gave the job sheet in which the consent of the complainant was mentioned with his signature that he denied for replacement of the said damaged part and want the whole product replacement. OP No.3 has further admitted that they guided the complainant to reach back to the manufacturer i.e. OP-2 & seller i.e. OP-1 for further replacement. From the above submission of OP No.3, it is clear that the product in question is not working properly within few days of its purchase and OP No.3 was ready to replace the defective parts free of costs. Further, OP No.3 guided the complainant to approach OPs No.1 and 2 for the replacement of the laptop which also suggests that the replacement is permissible.
14.     From the bare perusal of the submissions of the parties and documentary evidence on record, it is established that the display of the newly purchased laptop stopped working soon after its purchase and the complainant had approached the seller as well as the service center of OP No.3 for its replacement within seven days as per the return policy of the OPs and even wrote emails in this regard to the OPs but they instead of replacing the laptop with a new one insisted for its repairs.
15.     Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that as the product in question becomes defective soon after its purchase, therefore, the complainant has lost faith upon the product in question and thus, it would be in interest of justice and equity to direct OP No.1 to refund its price to the complainant instead of its repairs.
16.     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.
17.     This order be complied with by OP No.1 within 90 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
18.     The complaint qua the remaining OPs stands dismissed.
19.     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
20.     Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 16/11/2023
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/- (B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER