BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.184 of 2015
Date of Instt. 04.05.2015
Date of Decision :07.09.2015
Ravinder Mehta aged about 45 years son of K.N.Mehta R/o 163, Harnam Dass Pura, Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
1. TSS Service Solution Pvt Ltd, Business Bay, Ground Floor, 182, Model Town, Jalandhar, Punjab-144003.
2. Apple Head Office at 19th Floor, Comcorde Towner C UB City, 24 Vitthl Mallya Road, Banglore.
3. Menlo Park Gabraeal Barness 55 Personage Road Suite 2125 Edison, NJ 08837 732-623-7700.
.........Opposite parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Umesh Ohri Adv., counsel for OP no.1.
Opposite party No.2 exparte.
Service of opposite party No.3 dispensed with as it was situated abroad.
Order
J.S.Bhatia (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant purchased I-PAD whose number is F4KKLOAF19K, on 17.7.2013 from Mento Park 55 Passengers Road Suite 2125 EDison No.08837 to USA 599$. The shopkeeper who was employee of the Apple Company told him that his I-PAD has warranty through out the world. After coming to India, he found that charging point is out of order and I-PAD also hanged as well. He submitted his I-PAD to the service centre and after changing the wire of I-PAD, they gave it to him but even after that his I-PAD is not running and is still out of order. On 11.7.2014 he submitted his I-PAD to service centre and again they returned to him after repairing on 15.8.2014. Further, they approached to their senior officer to change this I-PAD through email but they refused to change his I-PAD. He spent Rs.4300/- due to that and warranty has been extended for one year more. Whenever he requested them to change his I-PAD they always refused. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for changing of his I-PAD from the service centre.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the complainant is well aware of that he has no warranty applicable in India as per his complaint, he had allegedly purchased the device namely I-PAD for $599 on 17.7.2013 from Mento Park, 55 Passengers Road, Suite 2125 Edison No.08837, USA. Meaning thereby the warranty so applicable for the device, so purchased, from the country, shall be applicable to that country, as per the one year limited warranty-Worldwide policy laid down by Apple Company. As per the information and record available with the opposite party No.1, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 on 8.7.2014 at 11:05:050 with the general problem of hanging unit, which was resolved on the same date at 17:19:18 and I-PAD was returned after OS upgraded and resolved. Thereafter, again the complainant came to the opposite party No.1, with the demand USB Cable/Data Cable, which was given to the complainant after receiving Rs.1500/- with the undertaking that when the cable of the complainant shall be received from the warehouse of the company, the amount of Rs.1500/- shall be returned there and then and as per the assurance the amount of Rs.1500/- paid by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 had been refunded. The entire fact has been concealed by the complainant in his complaint. Meaning thereby concealment of facts clearly leads to dismissal of complaint. It is pertinent to mention that on 11.7.2014 at about 19:31:44 the I-PAD of the complainant was inward in the office of the opposite party and the same was repaired and closed on 14.7.2014 at 18:44:02 after resolving the issue and replace of accessory. The complainant again came to the office of opposite party No.1 on 15.7.2014 at about 13:22:53 with a complaint of problem of unit hanging and further other problem of low sound of speaker while playing music, but the customer was adamant to get his I-PAD replaced just because of a minor defect, as the I-PAD was taken into the custody by the opposite party No.1 for repair within warranty least bothering about that the I-PAD has been purchased from abroad. The complainant might have spent Rs.4300/- to extend the warranty for one year, but the warranty so extended is to be applicable at the country from where the product has been purchased, because the warranty policy is only limited and vary from the country to country from where the product has been purchased. It is clear from the averments in the complaint that the complainant only wants to get his I-PAD changed as he himself stated in this complaint that he requested the representatives of opposite party No.1 to change I-PAD. As stated above the change of I-PAD is not in the hands of opposite party No.1 as it is a company policy to be considered before changing the I-PAD and their decision is final. The request for change of I-PAD or refusal of the same or harassment is not in the hands of opposite party No.1. It is not out of place to mention that the I-PAD was not holded by the opposite party No.1 to change the same with the new one but it was holded just for repairing the same, which is the job of the opposite party. The amount of Rs.4300/- has been received as the complainant wanted to get his warranty extended. It denied other material averments of the complainant.
3. Opposite party No.2 did not appear inspite of notice and as such it was proceeded against exparte.
4. Notice to opposite party No.3 was dispensed with as it was situated abroad.
5. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed evidence.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP-1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed evidence.
7. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.
8. The complainant purchased the Apple I-PAD from USA for 599 USA$. According to the complainant after reaching India, he found certain defects in it and approached the service centre i.e opposite party No.1 who repaired it but I-PAD is still out of order. Further according to the complainant, the opposite party No.1 refused to change the I-PAD. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 contended that the opposite party No.1 is ready to provide the service to the complainant and to rectify the defect in his I-PAD, if any but he is not entitled to change of the I-PAD. He further contended that complainant paid Rs.4300/- vide retail invoice Ex.C3 to M/s Juneja Creations who is not party in the present proceedings for extension of warranty for one year. Ex.OP1 is Worldwide one year limited warranty policy. So as per warranty policy, the first obligation of the company is to repair the hardware defect at no charges, using new or refurbished replacement parts. The complainant, whenever, approached the service centre, he was provided services. This fact is evident from the delivery reports Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP3. The complainant has not led any expert evidence to prove that I-PAD is having any manufacturing defect. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 at the time of arguments stated at bar that it is ready to provide necessary service to the complainant and to rectify the defect in the I-PAD, if any. In our opinion, in the circumstances of the present case, the complainant is not entitled to change of his I-PAD with new one.
9. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties No.1 & 2 are directed to repair and rectify the defect in the I-PAD of the complainant, if any free of cost. For this purpose, the complainant may approach to opposite party No.1. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia
07.09.2015 Member Member President
