Bengaluru: Apple said it will reimburse the cost of the defective iPhoneX

BENGALURU: After it was discovered that his new one had undocumented damages, a defendant in one, who ordered the technology technician to compensate him and return the money paid for it.

Apple had not been able to replace or reimburse the cost of the device even though the phone was under warranty.

In their May 15 verdict, the judges ruled that Apple India should reimburse Rs 97,500 to the customer after removing the damaged phone. In addition, Apple was ordered to pay compensation of Rs 5,000 for causing mental agony and Rs 5,000 more for the costs of litigation. He was told to pay the full sum of Rs 1.07,500 within 60 days.

In early 2018, Doddabommasandra resident Deepak Kumar, 25, bought an iCentre X 64GB iPhone on Thanisandra Main Road for Rs 97,500. In August of that year, he found something strange: the volume of the speaker was low and he heard abnormal sounds while playing music.

Kumar rushed to Apple's authorized service center in Thanisandra and gave his earphone to be fixed. On August 6, he received an email from the center indicating that there was a problem with the speaker and that spare parts had been ordered. Five days later, he was surprised to receive another email saying he had to reopen his case for the repair.

Kumar contacted Apple India's help line and was told that his phone had suffered undocumented damage, which is not covered by the warranty, although it was a few months old. He tried to contact Apple by email and phone several times, but his staff refused to address the problem.

Then he approached the 2nd district of Bangalore Urban, the additional Forum for the resolution of consumer disputes, on September 24, 2018.

While Kumar presented documents related to his case, Apple appeared through his lawyer but did not present his version for unknown reasons.

After the forum judges heard the case for eight months, they criticized Apple India for service deficiency and failed to provide the right service to a customer even though the buyer had a valid warranty.

comments