Delhi District Commission Holds Apple Store Liable For Unfair Trade Practice; Orders Refund of Rs 91000 With Interest

The District Consumer Redressal Commission, Delhi recently directed Apple Store, Bangalore and it’s agent operating regionally at Preet Vihar, Delhi to refund Rs. 91000 with interest, to a complainant who established unfair trade practice and deficiency in services against them.

A bench of SS Malhotra (President), Rashmi Bansal and Ravi Kumar (Members), District Consumer Redressal Commission, Delhi, while allowing the complaint, observed, “OP1 and OP2 are jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and are directed to refund the complete amount of the phone to the complainant i.e. Rs. 91,000/- the cost of the phone with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its actual realization by the complainant. A compensation of Rs. 15,000/- is also awarded to the complainant which also includes the litigation cost. The OPs shall collect the phone from the complainant at the time of making the full and final payment.”

The bench also noted that when the phone was delivered for repair by the complainant, the same was in working condition, however, when it was returned it was dead and non-working despite it being in custody for 20 days, which indicated that something happened to the phone during repair that was left undisclosed by the opposite parties.

“OP has also not filed any expert opinion or the opinion of any person who has examined the phone at its centre or any evidence of such person who examined the phone to show that phone was damaged when open. There is no videography or photographs has been placed on record while opening the phone”, the bench added.

Brief Background

A complaint was filed against opposite parties (Apple Office, Bangalore, and agent B2X Service Solutions, Preet Vihar) for selling a defective iPhone10, worth Rs. 91,000.

As per the complainant, within two months of use, the phone started showing problems like no sound from the speaker, call drop issues, and non-swiping of the screen.

The complainant submitted that when he finally went to the office of opposite party no. 2, to collect his phone on 13.10.2018, he was informed that his iPhone X RC was found damaged, and service of the same was declined with the remark that it was not covered under warranty. This was after the phone was already given in repair two times, on 11.09.2018 (returned on 18.09.2018) and 24.09.2018.

On being forced to take the phone back, the complainant called the police, and the phone was again kept with the opposite party no. 2 to resolve the dispute, however, all went in futile, and on 12.11.2018, a legal notice was sent to the opposite parties.

Opposite Party no. 1 submitted that the complaint was misconceived, mala fide and the complainant was taking undue advantage of his own negligence by seeking protection under the consumer law.

Moreover, it was submitted that the liability of the manufacturer arises only when there is some inherent defect in the product, which in the present case, was not proved by any expert evidence or other means.

The complainant refused to accept that the phone was brought damaged and was out of warranty, opposite party no. 1 added.

Case Title: Sandeep Bhatia v. Apple Store & Anr. | CC No. 46 of 2019