Kangra District Commission Orders Apple India To Replace iPhone, Pay Rs. 10k Compensation And Rs. 15k Litigation Costs

Brief Facts:

The complaint arises from the purchase of an Apple iPhone by the Pankaj’s (“Complainant”) brother in Saudi Arabia on March 27, 2022, which was subsequently gifted to the Complainant on April 18, 2022. However, upon using the iPhone, the Complainant discovered it had issues with network connectivity and a malfunctioning camera. After contacting Apple’s customer care, the iPhone was sent for repair to an authorized service centre in Pathankot but was later transferred to an Apple care service centre in Bangalore due to internal damage. The Complainant was informed that the iPhone had internal damage that could not be repaired; instead, it needed replacement. It remained at the Apple care service centre until the Complainant served a legal notice on September 26, 2022, prompting its return. Aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala (“District Commission”) alleging deficient service on Apple’s part.

Apple contended that the Complainant's iPhone was found to have been tampered with before it was submitted for repair. Apple's warranty does not cover damage caused by unauthorized modifications or service performed by non-representatives. The service report from July 22, 2022, noted internal damage, rendering the device out of warranty. Apple offered to repair the iPhone as an out-of-warranty service, but the Complainant did not respond to this offer.

Observations of the Commission:

After perusing the evidence, the District Commission observed that the service report dated November 1, 2022, from QDIGI Service Ltd. stated that the device was sent to Apple repair Centre but was returned due to internal damage, which prevented them from providing warranty services. The District Commission further pointed out that if there had been any unauthorized modification by the Complainant it should have been noted on the repair acceptance form on July 22, 2022, but it was not mentioned. Moreover, the Complainant had explicitly stated in his affidavit that he did not make any such modification, and Apple did not provide an affidavit from a service engineer or technician to refute this claim. Therefore, before the District Commission, Apple failed to prove that there was any prior unauthorized or authorized modification to the device.

As a result, the complaint was allowed and Apple was ordered to replace the Complainant's iPhone with a new one of the same model. Additionally, Apple was instructed to pay the Complainant Rs. 10,000 as compensation, and Rs. 15,000 for litigation costs.

Case Title: Pankaj vs Apple India Private Limited

Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 458/2022

Advocate for the Complainant: Ms. Seema Rana

Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sharma

Click Here ToRead/Download Order