Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/841/2017

Samanyu Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unicorn Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vertika H Singh

16 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/841/2017
Date of Institution	:	04/12/2017
Date of Decision	:	16/10/2018

 

Samanyu Jain S/o Sh. Sanjay Jain, R/o H.No.2235, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Unicorn Infosolutions Pvt. Limited, through its Prop., SCO 315-316, Ground Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh – 160022.

2.     Apple India Pvt. Limited, through its Managing Director, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore – 560001.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM        :	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Smt. Vertika H. Singh, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Paras Mehra, Service Manager of Opposite Party No.1.
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Member

1.         The facts of the Consumer Complaint, in brief, are that the Complainant had bought an Apple MacBook Pro 13 INN, with Touch Bar on 03.07.2017 from Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.1,27,900/-. Apart from that, the Opposite Party No.1 had charged Rs.1700/- exclusively for the USB Adapter. It has been alleged that from the very first day, the Complainant had been experiencing various problems in his Laptop. The Complainant reported the said problems to Opposite Party No.1 who updated the software and also did some technical modifications. The Complainant requested for the replacement as the Apple Company gives a guarantee of 14 days, but Opposite Party No.1 refused to accept the same claiming that it had fixed the problems in the Laptop.  After few days, the Complainant again faced major problems in the said Laptop and eventually, approached Opposite Party No.1 on 04.09.2017. Opposite Party No.1 replaced the motherboard and delivered the Laptop to the Complainant on 08.09.2017. Thereafter, again the Complainant faced several issues like draining of battery, overheating, screen loose, continuous screen freezing & hanging, storage issues and side ports not working etc. The Complainant accordingly, visited Opposite Party No.1 Service Centre on 14.09.2017 and requested for replacement, but the said request was not acceded to. The Opposite Party No.1 advised the Complainant that the display of the Laptop shall have to be replaced. When the Complainant went for collecting his Laptop after repair on 26.09.2017, he was disheartened to see that none of the issues/problems reported by him had been sorted by Opposite Party No.1. Rather, Opposite Party No.1 insisted to take the delivery of the Laptop with persistent problems which Opposite Party No.1 was unable to resolve. The Complainant accordingly sent e-mails dated 30.09.2017, 08.10.2017 and 13.10.2017 to the Opposite Parties highlighting his grievance. When nothing positive could come out, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 24.10.2017 upon the Opposite Parties, which did not fructify. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party No.1 filed its written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complainant visited the Store with some issues with the Software, but the same was corrected immediately and Laptop was handed over to the Complainant after thorough check and satisfaction. It has been admitted that 14 days replacement was applicable only when there is any hardware issue/manufacturing defects in the Laptop. However, in the present case, there was only a Software issue which was corrected immediately in no time and returned with full satisfaction to the Complainant. It has been asserted that when the Complainant visited Opposite Party No.1 on 04.09.2017 the Laptop in question was not suffering from the alleged issues mentioned by the Complainant in her Complaint, but to keep customer fully satisfied and to keep faith on Apple products, Opposite Party No.1 changed the motherboard of the Laptop and returned it to the Complainant on 08.09.2017.  Opposite Party No.1 has urged that it never asked for any screen replacement, as averred by the Complainant, as there was no issue with the Screen. All the issues reported by the Complainant on 14.09.2017 were fully resolved and the Laptop was delivered back to the Complainant on 26.09.2017. It has been submitted that the Complainant was always keen for replacement only and was only self-creating issues just for replacing the Laptop whereas the issues highlighted were never there on the Laptop itself.   Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Opposite Party No.2 filed its separate written version, inter alia, admitting the factual matrix of the case. It has been pleaded that the mother board was replaced in the device and the issue was resolved and the device was returned back to the Complainant on 08.09.2017 in working condition. The Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 for some display issue and as per warranty provision, the Complainant got the display replaced and the device was once again a new device. Thereafter, the Complainant has never approached Opposite Party No.1 for any sort of service. It has been urged that the Complainant is making up stories to suit his case. The Complainant has not produced any evidence to prove that the device had manufacturing defect. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         The Complainant also filed separate rejoinders to the respective written statements filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have been controverted.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
7.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
8.         Perusal of the written statements of Opposite Party No.1 (the Retailer) and Opposite Party No.2 (the Manufacturer) shows that both have come up with different versions which in contradiction with each other as instead of supporting their stand, they themselves demolished the same by doing so. Opposite Party No.2 (the Manufacturer) has admitted that the major issue of motherboard as well as display was resolved by it; whereas, on the other hand, Opposite Party No.1 specifically took a stand of replacement of motherboard only. In this backdrop, we are of the concerted opinion that the replacement of the motherboard as well as the display of the MacBook within two months of its purchase, even after spending a huge amount of Rs.1,27,900/-, is a major issue and speaks volume regarding the quality of the product. It is borne on record that till date the Opposite Parties have not been able to resolve the issue in toto and the MacBook is in the custody of the Opposite Party No.1. 
9.         Hence, the act of the Opposite Parties for selling a sub-standard product, non-providing of proper services, non-replying to the legal notice, proves that they are indulged into unfair trade practice and are guilty of rendering proper services to the Complainant, which in turn certainly has caused unprecedented physical and mental harassment to the Complainant and forced him to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation. 
10.         No doubt, the MacBook in question was under warranty period. However, once it is proved on record that there is defect, imperfection in the quality of product and there is an inherent defect, the warranty amounts to guarantee to replace the product/ refund the amount charged against the product sold. A consumer would not like to purchase headache as is happened in the present case. Immediately, after its purchase, the MacBook failed to give satisfactory performance which is expected from a product manufactured and sold by a reputed company like Opposite Party No.2 (Apple India Pvt. Ltd.).   
11.         In view of the above, the complaint deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the complaint is partly allowed against Opposite Party and it is directed as under:-

(i)     To refund to the price of the MacBook amounting to Rs.1,27,900/- to the Complainant, along with interest @7% p.a. from the date of purchase, till realization

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

(iii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

12.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [i] above from the date of purchase, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [ii] above, shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [iii]. 
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
16/10/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”