Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak
Complaint No. : 60.
Instituted on : 25.01.2021.
Decided on : 06.07.2021.
Mudit son of Shri Vijay Kumar resident of House No.377-378 Dushera Chowk, 60 feet, Nehru Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- DIGICARE Services APPLE ROHTAK at Shop no.106, First Floor, Sheetal Life Style Mall D-Park, Rohtak-124001, Haryana.
- Apple India Pvt. Ltd. No.24, 19th Floor, Concorde Tower, UB City, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001 (Manufacturer).
- FLIPKART INTERNET PVT LTD., Vaishnavi Summit, no.6/b, 7th Main, 80 feet road, 3 Rd Block Koramangala, Bangalore.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Ankur Dua, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Kunal Juneja, Advocate for the opposite party no.2.
Sh.Ankit Hooda, Advocate for opposite party No.3.
Opposite party no.1 already exparte.
ORDER
SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT :
1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is a student and was in need of a laptop. So he purchased a laptop APPLE Macbook Air Core i5 5th Gen. bearing IMEI/Serial No.SFVFD8CJ5J1WK for a valuable consideration of Rs.59900/- from the opposite party no.3 with one year manufacturer warranty. After purchasing the alleged laptop, complainant started using the same as per guidelines and instructions for use by manufacturer i.e. opposite party no.2. But the same worked only for two months and thereafter the said laptop suddenly stopped working. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 on dated 06.01.2021 and the officials of the opposite party after checking the product, admitted the fault and assured the complainant that it is a small problem and will be solved within 2 days. But after a week, the officials of the opposite party No.1 conveyed that the laptop/macbook is damaged by water and cannot be repaired whereas at the time of submitting the same, nothing was conveyed to the complainant. Complainant requested the opposite parties telephonically as well as through email dated 14.01.2021 to repair the alleged laptop but to no effect. Complainant requested the opposite parties either to replace the laptop in question with new one or to refund the price thereof as the complainant was losing his studies due to non-availability of laptop. But any heed was not paid to his requests and lastly the service centre flatly refused to repair the same. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the laptop/macbook with a new one or to pay the invoice amount i.e. Rs.59900/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of purchase and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party no.1 through registered post received back served. But non appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 and as such opposite party no.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.02.2020 of this Commission. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has used the Mac Book negligently and damaged it by exposing it to some liquid, hence it cannot be serviced/replaced under warranty. The complainant had approached the opposite party no.3(OP1) on 06.01.2020 with regard to some alleged issues with regard to his Mac Book Air by alleging that it was not powering on. The opposite party No.1 inspected the said MAC Book and found that it was having liquid damage in it. Opposite party No.1 diagnosed that the said Mac Book was exposed to some liquid by the complainant and it was evident by the pink colour liquid Contact Indicator(LCI). The LCI is a part of Mac Book Pro and turns pink in color in the moment the said laptop is exposed to any liquid. This will results in the said laptop being rendered damaged. Hence liquid damage is not covered by the warranty. The complainant was informed on 12.01.2021 that his MAC book was out of warranty and could not be repaired under warranty. On merits, it is submitted that the averments stating that the officials checked the laptop, admitted their fault and it was assured by them that it was a small problem and will be solved within 2 days, it denied as false. The complainant was informed by the opposite party No.1 that his laptop was damaged by water and cannot be repaired. He would receive and replacement/repair under warranty as long as his laptop was not in violation of the terms and conditions of the said warranty. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party no.3 in its reply has submitted that Flipkart Internet Private Limited provides online market place platform/technology and/or other mechanism/services to the sellers and buyers of products to facilitate the transactions, electronic commerce for various goods, by and between respective buyers and sellers and enables them to deal in various categories of goods. Opposite party act as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end customers. The grievance of the complainant is with respect to the alleged defects in the goods and after sale services provided by the manufacturer and/or the service centre engaged by the manufacturer and not against the answering opposite party. The answering opposite party is wrongly arrayed in the present complaint. As such it is prayed, that complaint may kindly be dismissed against answering opposite party.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of this case.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, and document Ex.C1 & Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence on dated 26.03.2021. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and has closed his evidence on dated 18.06.2021. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.3 has made a statement that reply already filed on behalf of opposite party no.3 be read as affidavit, tendered document Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on dated 18.06.2021.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties, it is observed that as per bill Ex.C2, the complainant had purchased the Lpatop/Mac Book in question on 24.10.2020 and as per job sheet Ex.C3, he has handed over the alleged MacBook with the service centre on dated 06.01.2021 due to the defect: “device not power on”. As per this job sheet, the mobile was in warranty. Complainant also sent an email dated 14.01.2021 submitting therein that: “On 04th January 2021, the alleged Macbook stopped working, which was taken up to Apple Care and they told that the matter will be resolved within 2-3 days but lateron after 8 days they told that it was damaged by water”. On the other hand, contention of the opposite party No.2 is that complainant has used the Mac Book negligently and damaged it by exposing it to some liquid, hence it cannot be serviced/replaced under warranty. But to prove the same, opposite party has placed on record only a photocopy of a photograph Ex.R3. But neither any supporting affidavit nor any expert evidence has been placed on file by the opposite party to prove this document. Hence it is not proved that the laptop/Macbook was liquid damaged. Moreover, opposite party has not placed on record any document to prove that the complainant had intentionally damaged the Mac Book by exposing it to some liquid. It is also observed that the defect appeared in the laptop in question within very short period of its purchase i.e. within 2½ months of its purchase, which was neither repaired, nor replaced by the opposite parties within warranty period. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. At the time of arguments, ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant being a student was in dire need of laptop so he has arranged some other second hand laptop and therefore, he has prayed for refund of price. As the laptop is used by the complainant only for 2½ months, so no depreciation would be deducted from the price of laptop and the complainant is entitled for the refund of price of his laptop. As such opposite party no.2 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of Laptop/Macbook in question to the complainant.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 i.e. manufacturer to refund the price of Macbook in question i.e. Rs.59990/-(Rupees fifty nine thousand nine hundred and ninety only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 25.01.2021 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, laptop/Macbook in question is already in the possession of service centre.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
06.07.2021
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………….
Tripti Pannu, Member.
