The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad, Kerala, held Apple India and its authorized service center liable for deficiency in service for failing to repair the complainant’s iPhone 13 under warranty.

 

Brief Facts Of The Case

The complainant bought an Apple iPhone 13 Pro on 29.04.2022, for ₹95,000/-. Shortly after purchase, the phone began showing problems such as excessive battery drain, a malfunctioning receiver speaker, and a yellow-tinted display. The complainant brought the phone to an Apple-authorized service center on 15.12.2022, which initially assured him it would be repaired under warranty. However, later, the complainant was informed that the phone had internal physical damage and could only be repaired at an additional cost of ₹72,000/-.

When the complainant attempted to retrieve the phone on 27.12.2022, it was still not functioning properly. Despite his attempts to seek assistance from Apple India, he received no response. Subsequently, he filed a complaint with the DCDRC, Palakkad, demanding compensation for the cost of the phone, damages for data loss and delay, and compensation for mental distress.

 

Complainant’s Allegations

The complainant alleged that the OP informed that the product had suffered from internal physical damage and the same could only be repaired out of warranty only. However, the OP offered another alternative, i.e., the complainant could pay a sum of Rs.72,000/- and the product would be replaced with a new one. 

Despite receiving a message that the product is ready, the complainant found it to be non-functional. Much to the amusement of the complainant, the OPs remarked that “the complainant informed that repairs need not be done under warranty, returning the device”. However, no such communication was done by the complainant. Upon such conduct of the OP No. 2 in the complaint, the complainant reached out to the OP No. 1 but to no avail. 

Furthermore, the complainant alleged that he received a mail from the OP stating that if the complainant does not wish to pick up the product, then the complainant will be charged a sum of Rs.100/- as demurrage charge and even then if the complainant does not pick up the product within 45 days, the product will be disposed of. To add to the grievance of the complainant, he was astonished to discover that the data in his phone have been scrapped off without his permission.

 

Opposite Parties Submission

The OP stated that the complainant complained of black display, receiver issue and battery draining issue. The OP contended that the product suffered from an internal damage caused due to presence of a foreign material in the barometer and on the surface of the enclosure grills which amounts to accidental damage and the same is outside the purview of warranty services. 

Furthermore, the OPs have contended that the erase or removal of data was done only after receiving assent from the complainant while receiving it for the purpose of inspection and diagnosis. It was agreed by the complainant to back up all the data from the phone. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service.

 

Commission’s Observations

The commission observed that the phone was manufactured by the first opposite party. After usage for few months, the phone started to develop unusual issues like battery draining and issues in the receiver’s speaker. The situation was worsened when the phone’s screen started to turn yellow and post which the display blacked out. 

In order to substantiate his case, the complainant adduced certain documents majorly pertaining to the purchase invoice, repair acceptance receipt, email copies, etc. The complainant denied any communication with respect to the out of warranty service as contended by the Opposite parties in the present case. The Opposite parties adduced a document, technically, a photograph showing presence of foreign material which led to the damage. However, the same was objected and denied as there was nothing on record to show that the same phone belonged to the complainant. 

The Commission found that the burden of proof was on the opposite party (Apple and its authorized service center) to provide expert evidence showing that the phone had accidental damage—a burden they did not fulfill. Given that the defect manifested within eight months of purchase, the Commission held that the complainant was entitled to a free repair.

As, the Opposite parties failed to prove the same, the acts of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in services. 

 

Commission’s Decision 

The Commission ruled that Apple India and the service center were deficient in service for failing to repair the phone under warranty and therefore, the Ld. Commission ordered the following:

  1. Repair or Refund: Apple and the service center must either repair the complainant’s iPhone to his satisfaction or refund the purchase price of ₹95,000/- with 10% interest from 15.02.2023.
  2. Compensation: The opposite parties are directed to pay ₹30,000/- for deficiency in service, ₹20,000/- for mental agony, and ₹10,000 for litigation costs.

This case highlights consumer rights in India, emphasizing that consumers are entitled to quality service and that companies are accountable for upholding warranties.

 

Case Name: Sanjay Krishnan N.K Versus Apple India Pvt Ltd. and Anr 

Complaint Case No.: CC/47/2023

Decided on:24.09.2024