DCDRC orders Apple India to replace iPhone and make amends to the complainant
Orders it to pay Rs.10,000 as compensation and Rs.15,000 as litigation cost
DCDRC orders Apple India to replace iPhone and make amends to the complainant
Orders it to pay Rs.10,000 as compensation and Rs.15,000 as litigation cost
The Dharamshala bench of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Kangra, has held Apple India Private Limited deficient in service for failing to provide service to a customer who faced network connectivity and camera issues with his newly purchased iPhone.
The bench comprising Hemanshu Mishra (president), Arti Sood (member), and Narayan Thakur (member) refuted Apple’s contention that the iPhone could not be fixed, as it had some internal damage, rendering the device out of warranty. It noted that Apple failed to prove there was any prior unauthorized or authorized modification to the device.
An individual purchased an Apple iPhone in Saudi Arabia on 27 March 2022 and gifted it to his brother Pankaj on 18 April of the same year.
However, while using the iPhone, Pankaj (complainant) discovered it had network connectivity issues and a malfunctioning camera. Upon contacting Apple’s customer care, the iPhone was sent for repair to an authorized service centre in Pathankot. Later, citing internal damage issue, it was transferred to a service centre in Bengaluru.
The complainant was then informed that the internal damage issue could not be repaired and, instead, it needed replacement.
The iPhone remained at the Apple care service centre until 26 September, when the complainant served a legal notice to the company, prompting its return.
The aggrieved complainant approached the consumer court, alleging deficient service on the part of Apple.
Apple contended that the complainant's iPhone was found tampered with before it was submitted for repair. The company’s warranty did not cover damage caused by unauthorized modifications or services performed by non-representatives. The 22 July service report noted internal damage, rendering the device out of warranty. Apple offered to repair the iPhone as an out-of-warranty service, but the complainant did not respond to this offer.
However, the DCDRC observed that the 1 November service report from QDIGI Service Ltd. stated that the device was sent to the Apple repair centre but was returned due to internal damage, which prevented them from providing warranty services.
The Commission pointed out that if there was an unauthorized modification by the complainant it should have been noted on the repair acceptance form on 22 July. Moreover, the complainant explicitly stated in his affidavit that he did not make any such modification, and Apple did not provide an affidavit from a service engineer or technician to refute this claim.
Since Apple failed to prove there was any prior unauthorized or authorized modification to the device, DCDRC ordered the company to replace the complainant's iPhone with a new one of the same model. The Commission also instructed Apple to compensate the complainant.