Forum tells Apple to refund cost of iPhone, pay relief to complainant

Aneesha Sareen

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 22

The UT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed Apple India and their service centre in Chandigarh, Paramatrix Info Solutions, to pay Rs 17,000 towards compensation and litigation costs to an Australian citizen, as they failed to replace his phone even as its warranty period had not expired.

The forum directed Apple India to refund Rs 62,500, the cost of the handset, pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant and Rs 7,000 towards litigation costs.

The complainant, Kewal Nain Singh, an Australian citizen, through his attorney Harvinder Singh, stated in his complaint that he had purchased an Apple iPhone 6 (64 GB, Space Grey) at Australia in September, 2014. the handset was under warranty period when, during his visit to India, it went dead on March 6, 2013. The phone was taken to an authorised service provider of Apple, Paramatrix Info Solutions, where the agents checked the handset and its warranty period.

It was averred that the staff of Paramatrix said since the mobile was within the international warranty period, it would be replaced with a new set within a few days. Accordingly, a job card was prepared. The mobile set was opened and properly verified by the attendant of the service centre before assuring the replacement.

However, on March 10, 2015, the service centre informed the complainant over the phone that the set was water damaged and would not be replaced. This despite the fat that the handset was opened and checked by the service centre on the day it was deposited. The matter was also taken up with the customer care centre of Apple but to no avail.

The forum stated that the job card revealed that the mobile in question was declared as a ‘dead unit’ after a thorough checking. The factum of presence of water content is nowhere recorded in the job card, which also had a mention of the date of purchase of the mobile (September 9, 2014) and its being under warranty on the date of its going out of order. Despite repeated requests and an e-mail dated March 15, 2015, the grouse of the complainant was not redressed. In such a scenario, it is right to conclude that no proper services were rendered to the complainant, due to which the complainant was forced to indulge in litigation for the redressal of his grievance.