The Rohtak District Consumer Commission directed a US-based mobile company to refund Rs 45,500 to an advocate who alleged persistent defects in his phone. The commission held that the company failed to substantiate its claim of unauthorised tampering with independent technical evidence and was therefore deficient in service.
A bench of president Nagender Singh Kadian and members Tripti Pannu and Vijender Singh also awarded a sum of Rs 5,000 to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused due to deficiency in service and a further sum of Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
“In the absence of any reliable evidence proving unauthorised modification, the opposite parties were not justified in refusing warranty service and returning the mobile phone without rectifying the defects repeatedly complained of by the complainant. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, as the manufacturer is liable to compensate the complainant,” the commission said on August 7.
The bench noted that the photographs produced on record also do not conclusively establish such alleged unauthorised modification. It continued, “Mere recording of an internal remark in the job sheet, unsupported by any independent technical evidence, is not sufficient to discharge the burden cast upon the opposite parties to prove that the complainant had violated the terms of the warranty.”
The case arose from a complaint filed by Rajbir Phogat, a 58-year-old advocate, before the commission. He purchased a phone for Rs 64,999 in January 2024, but alleged that the phone had recurring problems including overheating, Bluetooth connectivity, call drops and network issues.
Despite repeated visits to the service centre, software updates, purchasing iCloud storage and even switching his mobile network from Jio to Airtel, the problems allegedly continued. He therefore sought replacement of the phone or refund of the purchase price, along with compensation for mental agony, loss of work and litigation expenses.
The mobile manufacturer, however, denied liability, claiming that the phone had unauthorised modifications and tampering, including an allegedly non-genuine rear camera lens and altered back glass, which excluded it from warranty coverage. The service centre also relied on its job sheet recording these observations.
The mobile manufacturer denied that the phone suffered from a manufacturing defect and contended that the device had undergone unauthorised modifications, including tampering with the rear camera lens and back glass.
It argued that such modifications excluded the device from its one-year warranty. It was also maintained that it operates separately from authorised service providers and therefore should not be held responsible for their obligations.
The authorised service centre alleged that the complainant had not approached the commission with clean hands and had failed to provide evidence showing that the alleged defects existed from the date of purchase. It relied on its service records and diagnosis of the device and sought dismissal of the complaint.
The commission found that the phone had developed defects during the warranty period, including network, overheating, and Bluetooth connectivity problems, which remained unresolved despite repeated attempts at repair.
Although the company and the service centre alleged unauthorised modification and tampering, they failed to produce an affidavit from the inspecting engineer, an expert report, or other technical evidence establishing that the phone had actually been tampered with.
“Apart from the aforesaid endorsement in the job sheet, the opposite parties have not produced any affidavit of the engineer/technician who allegedly inspected the device, nor have they placed on record any expert report or technical evidence to establish that the rear camera lens, back glass or any other part of the mobile phone had in fact been subjected to unauthorised modification or tampering,” it said.
The commission held that the photographs placed on record also did not conclusively prove unauthorised modification. A mere internal remark in the service job sheet, without independent technical evidence, was insufficient to establish that the complainant had violated the warranty terms.
The judgment matters because it places the burden on manufacturers to substantiate warranty exclusions with credible technical evidence. It makes clear that a mere service-centre remark alleging tampering cannot justify denying warranty service. The ruling also reinforces consumer protection against unresolved product defects and inadequate after-sales service.
Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Haryana helpline: 1800-180-2087) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
Kolkata man cites probe by US law firm on foldable screen ‘defect’, wins Rs 1.2 lakh
Phone buyer wins refund, fined Rs 50,000 for selling undisclosed overseas model
‘Waterproof’ phone fails delivery man’s test, he wins Rs 52,000 consumer payout, refund
Jagriti Rai works with The Indian Express (Digital), where she writes from the vital intersection of law, gender, and society. Working on a dedicated legal desk, she focuses on translating complex legal frameworks into relatable narratives, exploring how the judiciary and legislative shifts empower and shape the consciousness of citizens in their daily lives. Expertise Socio-Legal Specialization: Jagriti brings a critical, human-centric perspective to modern social debates. Her work focuses on how legal developments impact gender rights, marginalized communities, and individual liberties. Diverse Editorial Background: With over 4 years of experience in digital and mainstream media, she has developed a versatile reporting style. Her previous tenures at high-traffic platforms like The Lallantop and Dainik Bhaskar provided her with deep insights into the information needs of a diverse Indian audience. Academic Foundations: Post-Graduate in Journalism from the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), India’s premier media training institute. Master of Arts in Ancient History from Banaras Hindu University (BHU), providing her with the historical and cultural context necessary to analyze long-standing social structures and legal evolutions. ... Read More
