Failure To Repair IPhone 13 Under Warranty, District Commission Holds Apple Liable For Deficiency In Service

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (Kerala) bench, consisting of Vinay Menon (President), Vidya A. (Member), and Krishnankutty N.K. (Member) held Apple India and its authorized service center liable for deficiency in service for failing to repair complainant's iPhone 13 under warranty. Background Facts On April 29, 2022, the complainant bought an Apple iPhone 13 Pro for Rs. 95,000 from Gulf Own Digital Hub in Perinthalmanna, Kerala. After a few months of use the phone began to malfunction showing issues like unusual battery drainage, a non-working receiver speaker and a yellow-tinted screen. On December 15, 2022, complainant took the faulty phone to an authorized service center (the second opposite party) which promised to fix it under warranty. Later he received an email stating that the device had been sent to the first opposite party for further diagnosis. On December 23, 2022, the service center informed him that the phone had internal physical damage and could only be repaired out of warranty. They offered to replace it for an additional Rs. 72,000. On December 26, 2022, the complainant received an email detailing the diagnosis and stating that the phone was ready for delivery. when he went to collect it the following day his phone was still not in working order. After that, the complainant reached out to Apple India about the issue but got no response. On February 1, 2023, the authorized service center claimed they were not responsible for the phone's condition. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint before the DCDRC Palakkad, Kerala seeking Rs. 95,000 for the phone's price, Rs. 1 lakh for damages, data loss and delay in communication and Rs. 1 lakh for mental distress. Observation by Commission The Commission noted that the opposite party claimed the complainant's phone had accidental damage to the enclosure grill and internal barometer. However, the Commission observed that the burden of proof was on the opposite party to demonstrate this through expert evidence which they failed to provide. Commission held that since the defect in the phone occurred within eight months of purchase, the complainant is entitled to have it repaired at no cost. The Commission found that the opposite parties failed to repair the phone under warranty, which is a clear deficiency in service. Because of this, they must compensate the complainant. The Commission directed the opposite parties to either repair the complainant's iPhone to his satisfaction or refund ₹95,000, the cost of the phone, with 10% interest from February 15, 2023, until the payment is made. Additionally, the Commission directed opposite parties to pay Rs. 30,000 for the deficiency in service, Rs. 20,000 as compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs. 10,000 for litigation costs. Case – Sanjay Krishnan N.K Versus Apple India Pvt. Ltd. and anr Citation – CC/47/2023 Date of Order – 24.09.24Click Here To Read/Download The order

Failure To Repair IPhone 13 Under Warranty, District Commission Holds Apple Liable For Deficiency In Service

Aryan Raj

Tags