Failure To Provide Satisfactory After-Sales Services Or Provide Replacement, New Delhi District Commission Holds Apple India Liable

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi bench of Poonam Chaudhry (President), Shekhar Chandra (Member) and Bariq Ahmad (Member) held Apple India Private Limited liable for deficiency in service for failing to provide proper after-sales services and repair the iPhone within a reasonable period. Brief Facts: The Complainant purchased an Apple iPhone 6 from Spice Retail Limited for Rs. 49,500/-. Approximately 10 months after the purchase, the Complainant noticed blurred patches on the screen and took the phone to an Apple Authorized Service Centre operated by Unicorn Infosolutions. After initial diagnosis, it was determined that the display needed replacement, which was covered under warranty. The Complainant initially requested a replacement phone but was assured by Unicorn that the repair would meet quality standards equivalent to a new device. The repair proceeded with Unicorn providing a standby device during this period. Upon completion of the repair, the Complainant was notified and given a service summary indicating the replacement of the display assembly and camera, with a 90-day service warranty. However, the Complainant's original device remained with Unicorn for over a month without further communication. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi against Spice Retail (“Seller”), Unicorn and Apple India Private Limited (“Apple”). In response, Apple argued that the initial repair addressed the display issue under warranty guidelines. Subsequently, when the Complainant reported another issue related to a display pop-up near the silent button, further repairs were attempted but did not meet the Complainant's expectations. Apple clarified that the device did not warrant further repair or replacement. It maintained that Unicorn acted in accordance with Apple's guidelines throughout the service process. Observations by the District Commission: The District Commission held that no trader or manufacturer could hide behind a warranty card when the product is found to have inherent manufacturing defects. It held that the primary objective of the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986, is to protect consumers' interests against unscrupulous manufacturers or traders who sell substandard or defective goods and against service providers who fail to maintain service standards. The District Commission noted that the depreciation rate of mobile phones as per the Income Tax Act, 1961 is 15% of the Written Down Value (WDV) for taxation purposes. Mobile phones are classified under 'plant and machinery' for depreciation rates, and like any other long-term asset, their value depreciates over time. It held that the act of Apple in failing to provide proper after-sales services and forcing the Complainant into unnecessary litigation was held to be proof of deficiency in services and an unfair trade practice. Therefore, the District Commission directed Apple to refund the cost price of the mobile phone to the Complainant after deducting 15% as the depreciation value. The Complainant was instructed to return the standby mobile with accessories to Apple at the time of receiving the payment. Additionally, the District Commission ordered Apple to pay ₹ 25,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment and ₹ 5,000/- as the costs of litigation. Case Title: Ashish Soni vs Spice Retail Limited and Ors. Case Number: CC/532/2016 Date of Order: 05.06.2024Click Here To Read/Download Order

Failure To Provide Satisfactory After-Sales Services Or Provide Replacement, New Delhi District Commission Holds Apple India Liable

Smita Singh

Tags