Consumer Forum In Kerala Directs Apple India To Compensate BCA Student For Defective MacBook

The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha, recently directed Apple India to pay a compensation of Rs. 36,500/- to a 20 years old BCA student, who was sold a defective Apple Macbook. The device costed over Rs. 2 lakhs and came with a one year warranty.

The compensation was determined at the rate of Rs 500/- per day he was not provided an alternate laptop/ refund while his defective Macbook was sent for repair at the authorized service centre.

The Commission presided by President S. Santhosh Kumar and Member, C.K. Lekhamma observed,

"If a person is purchasing product by spending such huge amount he is expecting best functioning from the product. Here in this case though the product was purchased on 19/3/2021 on 6/1/2022 it became defective...It is to be remembered that PW1 (complainant) was studying for BCA and laptop was must to perform the studies."

The Complainant represented by Advocate Shijoy John Mathew said that he is pursuing specialization as a Cyber Security Analyst from IBM, apart from BCA and claimed that a laptop is crucial for his academics. It was alleged that the laptop had several issues right from the beginning, such as it gave shock from the edges. When the issue was brought to the notice of the Apple Authorization Centre (2nd Opposite Party herein), the Complainant was advised to purchase an additional Apple Extension Cord worth Rs. 1,900 simply so that he would not get shock from daily use. 

Subsequently, the device started restarting on its own. When the Complainant searched online about the issue, he found that it was a common issue with the said laptop amongst its users. It was averred that the Complainant had contacted Apple India Pvt. Ltd. (1st Opposite Party herein) Service Centre, but since it was of no avail, he gave the laptop to the 2nd Opposite Party for repair on December 6, 2021. It was averred that although the Complainant was assured by the 1st Opposite Party's customer relations that he would be given an alternate device while his laptop was being repaired, no such was given to him. Later, on 6th January 2022, a customer relations executive informed him that he would be getting.

In this light, the Complainant sought a full refund, and compensation for mental agony, financial losses in stock market due to loss of laptop, and for being put in a position to rely on others for help for his daily use of a laptop.

The 1st Opposite Party represented by Advocate Sreedevi S. however submitted that the complaint was liable to be dismissed for being frivolous, since Apple products which utilize cutting edge technology, undergo strict quality tests to ensure that their products maintain high standards, and the Complainant was merely attempting to make unlawful gains. It was submitted by the counsel that the complaint was not maintainable since the 1st Opposite Party had refunded the amount of Rs. 2,24,910/- via NEFT on 15th February 2022, and accordingly, the claim for Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as cost was baseless. It was further contended that as per the limitation clause in the Apple terms of warranty, the 1st Opposite Party could not be held liable for financial loss, loss of reputation, loss of faith in the product, mental agony, etc by the consumer, including loss of business and opportunity. 

The Commission herein proceeded to analyze the facts and noted that since the refund was already done, it was only confined to the question as to whether the Complainant was entitled to the compensation sought.

It found that there had been a delay of 73 days between the time the laptop was entrusted to the 2nd Opposite Party for repairs on December 6th, 2021, and the refund which was granted on February 18, 2022. The Commission further noted that in addition to spending money for the laptop, the Complainant had to further spend Rs. 1700/- more for the extension cable. 

It was in this light that the Commission directed Apple India to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 500 for the said period of 73 days along with the amount spent for the extension cable, as well as Rs. 2000 towards cost.

The Commission however denied compensation for alleged loss in trade market, stating that there is no evidence on record to prove the averment.

The complaint was thus allowed in part, with the direction that it ought to be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the order. 

Case Title: S. Mahendranadh v. Apple India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 

Click Here To Read/Download The Order