Chandigarh Consumer Forum orders Apple India, service centre to replace defective iPhone 12 or refund Rs 40,449
The Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Apple India Private Limited, its authorised service centre Infosolutions & Services, and retailer Shreyash Retail to either replace a defective iPhone 12 with a new handset of the same model or refund its invoice price of Rs 40,449.
In an order dated June 8, the commission also awarded an additional Rs 10,000 as compensation for harassment and litigation costs, after the parties failed to repair the iPhone despite it being under warranty.
The commission, comprising President Amrinder Singh Sandhu and member S K Sardana, observed that the opposite parties had produced no expert report, inspection record, or technical assessment to substantiate their claim that the defect resulted from misuse, abuse, or physical damage by the complainant.
“In case OPs are unable to provide a brand new iPhone, for any reason whatsoever, they shall refund its invoice price, i.e. Rs 40,449, to the complainant along with interest at 6 per cent per annum w.e.f. 9.7.2022 (date of job sheet) till the date of actual realisation,” the order read. It further directed the parties to pay Rs 10,000 to the complainant as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
The complainant had purchased the iPhone 12 in October 2021 after exchanging his iPhone 7 and paying an additional Rs 9,550. In July 2022, he found that earphones were not working on the device, although they worked on other phones. He approached the authorised service centre, Infosolutions & Services, which took the phone for repair but did not return it. The complainant alleged that despite multiple follow-ups, the service centre failed to resolve the issue, leading him to file a consumer complaint.
Shreyash Retail, in its defence, stated that it was merely a reseller and had no role after delivery. Apple India argued that the defect was due to misuse but failed to provide any evidence. The commission rejected these claims, holding all three parties liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
