Apple India, service centre ordered to replace defective iPhone 12 or refund Rs 40,449

Holding Apple India, its authorised service centre and a retailer liable for deficiency in service, the Chandigarh Consumer District has directed them to either replace the complainant’s defective iPhone 12 with a new handset of the same model or refund its invoice price of Rs 40,449.

The commission also awarded an additional Rs 10,000 as compensation for harassment and litigation costs after the parties failed to repair the iPhone despite it being under warranty.

President Amrinder Singh Sandhu and member S K Sardana observed that the opposite parties had produced no expert report, inspection record or technical assessment to substantiate their claim that the defect was a result of misuse, abuse or physical damage by the complainant.

“In case OPs are unable to provide a brand new iPhone, for any reason whatsoever, they shall refund its invoice price, i.e. 40,449, to the complainant along with interest at 6 per cent per annum w.e.f. 9.7.2022 (date of job sheet) till the date of actual realisation.  to also pay 10,000 to the complainant as compensation for the harassment caused as well as litigation expenses,” the June 8 order noted.

iPhone upgrade

The complainant has filed the consumer complaint pleading that he was having an Apple iPhone 7 and was lured by the website of the OP offering to give a discount on the used mobile on purchase of a fresh mobile as an exchange bonus.

A debit note for the mobile and Rs 9,550 was issued; Rs 100 was charged as freight charges for pick up of used mobile.

Thereafter, a new Apple iPhone 12 was purchased by the complainant for which Rs 40,449 was paid by him to Shreyash Retail after adjustment of invoice dated October 3, 2021 was issued and the said mobile was having warranty of one year.

On July 9, 2022, when the complainant used the earphones on the said mobile, he found that they were not working, and when he used the said earphones on other mobiles, he was able to use the same.

The complainant asked his cousin, Mr Somvir, to approach Infosolutions and Services on September 9, 2022.

When the aforesaid Mr Somvir reported the said problem, the engineer of Infosolutions and Services tried to use many earphones, but none was working, and the mobile was given to them for replacement.

Thereafter, the complainant called the Apple Customer Care and visited the office of Infosolutions and Services many times to collect his mobile, but the matter was delayed.

Left with Rs 9,550 and since no option, complainant purchased a new mobile vide invoice dated August 5, 2022, through aforesaid Mr Somvir.

As per the complainant, the mobile in question is lying with Infosolutions and Services since September 9, 2022 and the same has not been returned after repair or replacement.

Alleging the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties (Shreyash Retail, Apple India Pvt Ltd, and Infosolutions & Services), the complainant filed the complaint seeking replacement of the mobile or refund of its price along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses.

Shreyash Retail Pvt Ltd (Opposite Party 1)

Shreyash Retail Pvt Ltd, in its written version, did not dispute that the complainant had purchased the mobile in question and that the same was having a one-year warranty or guarantee given by the manufacturer.

It was averred that the opposite party was merely a reseller and had no role to play once the product was delivered in good condition, as it is neither the manufacturer nor the authorised service centre.

Story continues below this ad

Remaining allegations have been denied as false; Shreyash Retail pleaded that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, and prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.

Apple India Pvt. Ltd (Opposite Party 2)

In its separate written version, Apple India also did not dispute that the complainant had purchased the mobile in question and that the same was having a one-year warranty.

It was admitted that the complainant brought the said mobile for repairs to Apple India on September 9, 2022, after more than 9 months of its purchase.

After inspection, it was found that since the damage caused to the subject phone was externally induced on account of accident/misuse/abuse, the same was outside the ambit of hardware warranty, which only applies to defects in materials and workmanship.

Apple maintained that it was not liable to refund/exchange the subject phone since the damage caused to it was due to misuse or abuse being accidental damage and not a manufacturing defect.

It was denied that the subject phone was lying with Infosolutions & Services; rather, the same was duly returned to the complainant by it, and remaining allegations have been denied as false.

Apple India pleaded that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part; and prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.

‘New iPhone or refund invoice price’

The Chandigarh Consumer Court noted that despite due service, Infosolutions & Services (Opposite Party 3) did not put in appearance before the commission, and accordingly it was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated April 17, 2023.

The commission observed that the complainant had purchased the Apple iPhone in question from Shreyash Retail through an invoice dated October 3, 2021, after availing an exchange benefit against his old mobile phone, and the said mobile phone was covered It under one-year warranty.

Story continues below this ad

The commission admitted that the complainant had approached the service centre on July 9, 2022, during the warranty period and handed over the handset with the grievance of earphones not functioning when connected to the mobile phone.

The commission said that the defence of Apple India that the defect in the mobile phone was caused due to external damage, misuse, abuse or accidental damage was just a bald assertion, and it had failed to place on record any cogent and convincing evidence to establish that the alleged defect was damage attributable to the complainant.

Needless to mention here that the service centres are well equipped to detect any physical/ liquid damage, and the same can be seen even with naked eyes, and the opposite parties have failed to place on record any expert report, inspection report, job sheet or technical assessment to substantiate their aforesaid plea, the commission said.

The commission observed that the complainant had specifically pleaded that the mobile phone in question was handed over to Infosolutions and Services for rectification of the defect and that despite repeated visits and requests, neither the repaired/replaced handset was delivered nor any satisfactory explanation was furnished.

Story continues below this ad

‘Deficiency in service’

It was highlighted by the commission that despite service, Infosolutions and Services chose not to contest the instant consumer complaint and was proceeded against ex parte; additionally, its contention that the phone was duly returned was not supported by any documentary evidence.

It was observed that even otherwise, it was incomprehensible that a service centre would return the handset to a customer without obtaining any receipt for the same, and it was safe to hold that the act was not satisfactory in addressing the grievance of the complainant, despite the mobile phone being under warranty, certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

In view of the above discussion, the commission allowed the complaint, and directed the opposite parties to replace and hand over the defective iPhone in question with a brand new iPhone of the same make/model, and, in case, the opposite parties are unable to provide a brand new iphone, for any reason whatsoever, they shall refund its invoice price Rs 40,449 to the complainant alongwith interest at 6 per cent per annum w.e.f. 9.7.2022 (date of job sheet) till the date of actual realisation.

Additionally, the Commission directed the opposite parties to also pay Rs 10,000 to the complainant as compensation for the harassment caused as well as litigation expenses, and which shall be complied with within 60 days from the date of receipt of its copy.

Story continues below this ad

Consumer takeaway from case

The ruling underscores that a consumer cannot be deprived of their right to claim when they have produced all the documents in favour of their case. It highlights that the opposite parties failed to discharge their onus to prove that the phone was mishandled or abused by the consumer.

In this case, the commission directed the opposite parties to replace and hand over a new iPhone, or pay its invoice price of Rs 40,449, and an additional Rs 10,000 payout as compensation for the harassment, reaffirming the consumer’s entitlement to redress the grievance of survival.

Aggrieved consumers may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Chandigarh helpline: 1800-180-2087 ) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.