ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Parties (herein referred in short as OPs) alleging the deficiency in service in selling a defective Mac Book Pro 13, 250 GB Retina with Touch Bar(2017) laptop, and not repairing the same by the service agency of the manufacturer, for refund of the cost of the said laptop i.e., Rs.1,36,245.48 along with interest at 24% on the same, for Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, financial loss, cost of the advocate and litigation and for other relief as the Commission deems fit.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that;

The complainant purchased Mac Book Pro 13, 250 GB retina with Touch Bar laptop, from OP2 by paying Rs.1,36,245.48 on 07.10.2017 in the name of Mr.G.Babu, his friend.  On 18^th October 2017 he faced certain issues in respect of the said laptop and took it to service station at Koramangala, and the screen was got replaced.  The laptop was having extended warrantee for a further period of two years and he paid Rs.17,900/- for the same.  On 10^th July 2018 the said laptop stopped working all of a sudden and started showing a folder with a question mark.  The same was taken to the authorized service provider. He was informed that the data stored would be safe even after the service.  Complainant accepted the same and signed the repair acceptance form.  He had stored a project worth Rs.4,00,000/- in the said laptop and also further some of his office personal data’s.  The laptop was given to the service center in a good condition both externally and internally without scratches.  He received a mail on 20^th July 2018 from I Care Service Provider, OP3, stating that “Laptop has to be installed with latest OS. Found SSD not detecting and needs to replace the Logic Board to address the issue”.  Post Replacing Logic Board Machine working properly and ready for delivery. 

When he reached on 24^th July 2018 to collect the laptop with OP3, he was shocked to see the condition of the laptop which had so many scratches and the data was not backed up.  He raised a verbal complaint.  He started working with the laptop and faced many issues while opening and closing the screen for which OP2 apologized and asked him to wait for some more time to rectify the mistake and they brought the laptop back the battery of which was not charged and could not be opened.  Hence he didn’t take the delivery of the same.

Again on 27^th July 2018, he was informed by mail that the laptop is ready stating that the customer report machine folder with question mark tried installing latest OS. Found the SSD not detecting the Logic Board and Display.  On 2^nd august 2018 when he went to collect the laptop, while operating, he found the issue with touch pad click action in the laptop not working.  These are all due to negligent act of the service center. Hence he had to issue legal notice on 27.09.2018 demanding the OP to replace the scratched and damaged laptop which also had extended warrantee. Though the same was served on them, they failed to replay or comply his demand.  Hence the complaint.

3.      Upon the service of notice, OP3 remained absent and hence placed exparte.  OP1 and 2 appeared before the Commission through different advocates.  OP2 filed his version in time, whereas, OP1 filed the version which was rejected on the ground that it was filed after the stipulated time. 

4.      OP1 has also filed an application u/s 26 of the C.P. Act along with the affidavit praying the Commission to dismiss the complaint as there is no relationship of the purchaser and the seller, consumer and the service provider.

5.      In the version filed by the OP2, it is contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is frivolous, misconceived, baseless and liable to be dismissed.  Complainant is making certain grounds to evade payment of monthly installments of the loan which availed from them while purchasing the laptop.  He is abusing the process of the Commission.  No allegations made by the complainant against OP2 who is the seller of the laptop.  Further no specific relief has been sought from him.  Complainant made OP2 as a party to seek compensation.  OP2 is not liable to pay the same.  OP2 has denied all the allegations made in each and every para of the complaint.

6.      It is further contended that the complainant is not the customer, who purchased the Laptop.  It is one Mr.Babu residing at flat No.10, I Floor, 8^th cross, Shantinagar, Ramamurthy nagar, Bangalore East, who is the purchaser.  Hence the said Mr.Babu has to make the complaint and not the present complainant.  Hence prayed the Commission to dismiss the complaint.  

7.      Further it is contended that in case Commission comes to the conclusion that the complaint is to be allowed, and the OPs are liable to pay compensation and other incidental awards, OP2 is only a seller and have only limited liability under the terms and conditions mentioned in the back side of the receipt, as Reliance Digital Retail Return Policy with condition that for the products other than mobiles, cameras, tablets and laptops, the company and the service centers are responsible for further problem and hence prayed the Commission to dismiss the complaint.

8.      In order to prove the case, both the parties filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1)  Whether the complaint is maintainable as filed by the complainant?

2)     Whether the complainant is proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

3) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

9.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1       :             In the Negative

POINT NO.2 & 3 :             Do not suit for consideration for the following.

REASONS

10.   POINT No.1:-

     We have perused the contents of the complaint, the version, affidavit evidence filed by both the parties, and the documents produced.  OP2 has taken up the contention that the complaint is not maintainable, as one Mr.Babu, who is the purchaser in whose name Invoice has been raised and receipt has been issued, is the purchaser and he is the consumer and he is not the complainant in this case, and one Afdal Abdulla Mohammed, who is the complainant in this case has no relationship whatsoever as a consumer and hence this complaint is to be dismissed.

        11.   On perusing the cause title of the complaint, one Afdal Abdul Mohammed, resident of Ramamurthy Nagar, Bangalore, has filed this complaint, whereas Ex.P.1 is the receipt wherein one Mr.Babu has purchased the said laptop.  Even assuming for the moment that the averments made by the complainant is true and correct, in view of the complainant not being a purchaser even though he used the credit card of Mr.Babu, strictly speaking he is not the purchaser and the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.  When such being the case, Aftal Abdul Mohammed has no locus-standi to file this complaint and hence this complaint is not maintainable under law.  Hence we answer Point No. 1 in the negative and in the result point No.2 & 3 do not survive.  For the above reasons for consideration, we also allow the application filed under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act by OP2 and proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

1. Complaint is Dismissed.
2. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the same will be weeded out/destroyed.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 25^th day of August 2020)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Original Receipts

Ex P2: Receipt towards advance

Ex. P3: Repair acceptance form

Ex P4: Service report

Ex P5: email correspondence

Es P6: legal notice

Ex P7: postal acknowledgement

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Vishnu Renu (OP2)

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

• Nil -

MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT