Defects In iPhone X, East Delhi District Commission Holds Apple Liable, Directs To Refund Rs. 91,000 With Compensation

The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East), led by Mr. S.S. Malhotra and members Ms. Rashmi Bansal and Mr. Ravi Kumar, allowed a consumer complaint against “Apple”. The complaint was regarding a defective iPhone X and deficient services provided by Apple and one of its service providers. This led to financial losses and distress for the complainant. As a result, the Commission held both Apple (Opposite Party no.1) and its service provider (Opposite Party no. 2) responsible for the deficiency in services. They were directed to refund the phone's cost with interest and further compensate the complainant with Rs. 15,000/-. Brief Facts In July 2018, Mr. Sandeep Bhatia (Complainant) purchased an iPhone X for Rs. 91,000/-. However, within just two months, the phone started experiencing problems like no sound, call drops, and screen issues. Frustrated with these issues, on September 11, 2018, Sandeep handed the phone over to one of Apple's service providers (Opposite Party no. 2) for repairs. When he received the phone back on September 18, he was told it had been fixed. But the problems persisted, leaving Sandeep dissatisfied. He again decided to give the phone another chance, submitting it to the Apple service provider once more on September 24. To his dismay, on October 13, when Sandeep went to collect the phone, he found it completely dead. The service provider claimed that the phone was damaged and no longer covered by warranty. Feeling deceived, the complainant took the matter to the police in an attempt to find a resolution. A legal notice was also sent to the Apple Store on November 12 but no response was received. Frustrated by all of this, Sandeep filed a consumer complaint, requesting a refund for the phone and compensation for the financial losses, harassment, and legal expenses incurred by him. Arguments by Apple Apple argued that the complaint lacked merit and seemed like an attempt to misuse consumer protection laws. They highlighted their strict quality checks and their status as a market leader and innovator in technology. Apple also contended that when a consumer ignores the manufacturer's warranty policies (as in the present case), they can't rely on the Consumer Protection Act for help. According to Apple's warranty rules, if an Apple service centre finds damage in a device, they will NOT provide a refund or replacement. The warranty only works if the complainant's iPhone is checked by one of their authorized service centres and hasn't violated the warranty terms. Apple insisted that a manufacturer can only be held responsible when there's an inherent defect in the product and not when the product is wilfully damaged by the consumer. They also highlighted the "limitations and conditions" of their one-year limited warranty, which provides repair, replacement, or refund as necessary. They alleged that the complainant deliberately tried to cover up the fact that he had damaged the device himself. Observations of the Commission The Commission observed that the documents on record contradicted the claims made by Apple. The phone had been in working condition when handed over to the Apple service centre, but it was returned in a non-working, damaged state. Additionally, it was found that Apple had failed to provide evidence to prove that the complainant had wilfully damaged the device. The Commission found Apple responsible for unfair trade practices and inadequate services. Consequently, both Apple and its service provider were jointly and severally held liable for refunding the entire phone cost, amounting to Rs. 91,000/-, along with 9% interest from the date of filing the complaint. Additionally, a compensation of Rs. 15,000/-, including litigation costs, was granted to the complainant. The Commission ordered Apple to collect the damaged phone from the complainant upon making the full payment. Apple was given 30 days to comply with the order, and if they failed to do so, interest at a rate of 12% per annum would be applicable. Case Title: Sh. Sandeep Bhatia vs. Apple Store & Ors. Complaint Case No. 46/2019 Click Here To Read/ Download The Order

Defects In iPhone X, East Delhi District Commission Holds Apple Liable, Directs To Refund Rs. 91,000 With Compensation

Apoorva Pandita

Tags