The complainant Abhijeet Bhullar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Unicorn Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd., and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased apple 11 inch i pad (Serial No. DMPD91QHNTHO) on 27-9-2020 vide invoice No. UDLF 202101381 for total consideration amount of Rs.1,24,790/- from opposite party No. 1.
It is alleged that said i pad set is defective and not fit for function as some bright lines are continuously appearing on the screen on the bottom right corner of this i pad set. He made oral requests to opposite party No.1 for replacement or repair of the said i pad and opposite party No.1 advised to approach opposite party No.2 for repair but opposite party No.2 failed to repair the same. The complainant also got served legal notice and reminder upon the opposite parties but to no effect.
It is also alleged that said defect was detected within one year warranty period but even then the opposite party refused to replace or repair the I pad set which shows grave negligence, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties due to which complainant suffered physical and mental agony. The Authorized Service Centre/Opposite party No.2 did not attend the complainant properly and refused to repair the said i pad. The complainant alleged that he suffered economic loss as he could not do his work which was necessary.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to replace the above said i pad or to return the price amounting to Rs.1,24,790/- along with reasonable interest and also pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- in addition to Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses Rs.10,000/-.
Registered A.D. Notice of complaint was sent to the opposite parties.
In view of statement of learned counsel for complainant, name of opposite party No. 1 was deleted vide order dated 11-5-2022.
Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2, as such, exparte proceedings were taken against it.
Upon notice, the opposite party No.3 put an appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising preliminary objections that the contentions and averments made by the complainant in the instant complaint are blatantly false, vexatious, devoid of any merits and made with the malafide intention. The complainant with dishonest intention seeks undue benefits and unjust enrichment by making blatantly false and unsubstantiated claims against opposite party No. 3. The complainant is guilty of materially concealing and suppressing material facts and has approached this Commission with unclean hands. The instant complaint is nothing but an absolute abuse of the due process of law.
It has been pleaded that complainant had purchased an iPad PRO 11 WF CL 256 GRY HIN bearing Serial No. DMPD91QHNTHO on 27-09-2020. The complainant alleged that he had some screen related issue with his device. He approached Apple Authorised Service Provider (AASP) i.e., opposite party No.2 on 05-08-2021. The opposite party No.2 physically checked his device for the said issue and found that it had pressure damage on its display. The complainant was informed about the said damage and was also informed that his device was out of warranty, due to the damage inflicted on it by the complainant. The complainant is aware if the device is damaged, it renders it out of warranty cover. The complainant was offered paid repair service by opposite party No.2 as his device was out of warranty but he refused and collected his iPad back from the opposite party No.2. The complainant had acknowledged the findings of opposite party No.2 on the delivery report while receiving the iPad back from the opposite party No.2. Despite being aware of the same, he filed this complaint.
The opposite party No. 3 as mentioned an extract of the warranty which reads as under :-
“Your Apple branded or Beats-branded hardware product ("Product") is warranted against defects in materials and workmanship for a period of ONE (1) YEAR from the date of original retail purchase ("Warranty Period") when used in accordance with Apple's user manuals (refer to www.apple.com/support/country). Under this warranty, you will be able to direct your claims to Apple even, in situations where you purchased the Apple Product from a third party. If a defect arises during the Warranty Period, Apple, at its option will (1) repair the Product at no charge using new parts or parts that are equivalent to new in performance and reliability, (2) exchange the Product with a product with equivalent functionality formed from new and/or previously used parts that are equivalent to new in performance and reliability or with your consent, a product that is at least functionally equivalent to the product it replaces, or (3) refund the original purchase price. This warranty excludes normal depletion of consumable parts such as batteries unless failure has occurred due to a defect in materials or workmanship and, damage resulting from abuse, accident, modifications, unauthorized repairs or other causes that are not defects in materials and workmanship.
This Warranty does not apply: (a) to consumable parts, such as batteries or protective coatings that are designed to diminish over time, unless failure has occurred due to a defect in materials, or workmanship; (b) to cosmetic damage, including but not limited to scratches, dents and broken plastic on ports unless failure has occurred due to a defect in materials or workmanship; (c) to damage caused by use with a third party component or product that does not meet the Apple Product's specifications (Apple Product specifications are available at www.apple.com under the technical specifications for each product and also available in stores); (d) to damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse, fire, liquid contact, earthquake or other external cause; (e) to damage caused by operating the Apple Product outside Apple's published guidelines; f) to damage caused by service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider ("AASP"); (g) to an Apple Product that has been modified to alter functionality or capability without the written permission of Apple; (h) to defects caused by normal wear and tear or otherwise due to the normal aging of the Apple Product; (i) if and serial number has been removed or defaced from the Apple Product; or (j) if Apple receives information from relevant public authorities that the product has been stolen or if you are unable to deactivate passcode-enabled or other security measures designed to prevent unauthorized access to the Apple Product, and you cannot prove in any way that you are the authorized user of the product (eg. by presenting proof of purchase).
A perusal of the extract of the warranty above clearly shows that the manner in which the warranty is applicable. It clearly explains that if the device has any damage on it, the warranty cover automatically gets deleted.
That the complainant should understand the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has failed to establish his complainant nor has he provided any iota of evidence to support his claim. The main ingredients of consumer complaint are not established for his complaint to be entertained.
It has been pleaded that complainant is making an attempt to confuse this Commission to make out a false and vexatious case against the opposite party No.3, where none exists. The complainant had failed to establish his stand and has filed this complaint by ignoring both facts and Law.
The opposite party No. 3 has pleaded that liability of a manufacturer arises only and only when there is inherrent defect in the product. The manufacturer cannot be made liable until it is proved by adducing expert evidence that there was any manufacturing defect and the present case is not related to any manufacturing defect with the farthest stretch of imagination.
On merits, the opposite party No.3 has pleaded that the lines on the display are a result of pressure damage inflicted on it by the complainant. The service/ replacement under warranty was not possible on his iPad as it was found to be physically damaged and out of warranty. He was offered out of warranty service, which he declined. If the damage was not found on the said iPad, the complainant would have received appropriate service under warranty as determined by the opposite party No.2. The complainant has deliberately withheld these details and facts and is misleading this Commission that he did not receive service from the opposite parties within the warranty period. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party No. 3 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 26.7.2022 (Ex. C-4) and the documents (Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3).
In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Prateek Hiremath dated 4.3.2022 (Ex. OP-3/1) and the documents (Ex. OP-3/2 & Ex. OP-3/3)
Learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
In the case in hand, there is no dispute regarding purchase of iPad by complainant. There is also no dispute regarding defect occurred in the iPad during warranty period.
The controvery/dispute between the parties is that as per complainant some bright lines are continuously appearing on the screen on the bottom right corner of his iPad set due to which iPad is not fit for functioning/not working whereas the version of the opposite party No. 3 is that complainant approached Apple Authorised Service Provider (AASP) i.e., opposite party No.2 on 05-08-2021 and opposite party No.2 physically checked his device for the said issue and found that it had pressure damage on its display. The complainant was informed about the said damage and was also informed that his device was out of warranty, due to the damage inflicted on it by the complainant. The complainant was offered paid repair service by opposite party No.2 as his device was out of warranty but he refused and collected his iPad back from the opposite party No.2.
Ex. C-3 is the Retail Invoice of the iPad in question. It shows that complainant purchased the said iPad on 27-9-2020 for Rs. 1,24,790/- manufactured by opposite party No. 3 from opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 3 has admitted that complainant approached opposite party No. 2 i.e. authorised service centre within warranty period of the iPad in question for repair but opposite party No. 2 offered paid repair as the lines on the display were a result of pressure damage inflicted on it by the complainant and complainant declined paid repair.
Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 to put fourth their version. The opposite party No. 3 has not placed on file any document to prove that lines on the display were a result of pressure damage inflicted on it by the complainant as pleaded by opposite party No. 3 in its written version. The opposite parties have not placed on file any report of expert/technical person to prove that such defect can only take place due to pressure damage. The complainant got served legal notice as well as its reminder upon the opposite parties, but opposite parties even failed to reply to said notice.
In such circumstances, the version of the complainant has to be believed that defect occurred in the iPad in question during warranty but opposite party No. 2 did not repair it free of charge i.e. within warranty period. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No. 2 & 3.
There is no document on record to prove any manufacturing defect in the iPad in question. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to replacement or refund of price amount of mobile handset. Hence, the complainant is entitled to free repair of iPad in question within warranty as well as for extension of warranty. Admittedly iPad suffered some defect within warranty period and complainant approached opposite party No. 2 for service/repair during warranty period. Therefore, it would meet the ends of justice if direction for free repair of iPad under warranty and extension of warranty period is given to the opposite parties.
In the result, this complaint is partly allowed against opposite parties No. 2 & 3 with Rs. 8,000/- as cost and compensation. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 are directed to repair the iPad set in question of the complainant under warranty without charging any amount.
The opposite parties No. 3 is further directed to provide extented warranty of iPad in question to complainant for the period of three months from the date of compliance of copy of this order.
The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced :
25-01-2023
(Kanwar Sandeep Singh)
President
(Shivdev Singh)
Member
