Top News
Pakka Local | AmeerpetCharminarDilsukhnagar / LBNagarGachibowli / HITEC cityKukatpally / MoosapetMadhapur / Jubilee hillsMiyapur / LingampallySecunderabad / MarredpallyUppal/NagoleManikondaNizampet / BachupallyNampally
Fact CheckCrimeCity PoliticsLocal SportsGated Communities
General | School MailConsumer VoiceCampus BeatListiclesCivic Mail
Real Estate

Consumer panel orders Aptronix to refund ₹1.46 lakh for defective iPhone 16 Pro Max

10:50 AM Oct 08, 2025 IST | Harsha Vardhini
Updated At : 10:50 AM Oct 08, 2025 IST
Advertisement

HYDERABAD: The Medak District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Sangareddy has directed Aptronix DSL Mall, Uppal, and its authorised Apple service centre at Parklane, Secunderabad, to refund ₹1.46 lakh with 9% annual interest to a consumer who purchased an iPhone 16 Pro Max that developed a display fault within 40 days of purchase.

Advertisement

Commission finds deficiency in service

The order, dated July 11, 2025, was pronounced by Smt. Suvarna Jayasri (President) and members Gajjala Venkateswarlu and Makyam Vijay Kumar in Complaint Case No. 08/2025 filed by Bavana Saheb, a 63-year-old resident of Patancheru, Sangareddy.

Advertisement

The complainant said his son, employed in the UK, had gifted him the iPhone, bought on November 19, 2024, for ₹1,46,800 from Aptronix DSL Mall, Uppal. On December 29, 2024, the phone’s display failed during a video call. The following day, Saheb took the device to the Aptronix service centre at Parklane, where it was examined and diagnosed with a display defect.

Saheb alleged that despite assurances from Apple Support executive Aditya that a replacement or refund might be arranged, the company later insisted only on a display replacement. He argued that the refusal to replace the device amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Apple’s defence cites warranty terms

The opposite parties, represented by counsConsumer panel ordersed that the service policy required a repair attempt before any replacement or refund, as permitted under Apple’s one-year limited warranty. They said they had acted strictly in line with the policy and denied any negligence.

However, the Commission observed that the device became non-functional within a short period and that the service centre’s conduct—particularly its misleading statements and delays—caused distress to the complainant, a senior citizen.

Order and compensation

The Commission ruled that Aptronix’s actions constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, directing the two opposite parties to:

The order must be complied with within 30 days of receiving a certified copy.

Tags :
AppleIndiaAptronixConsumerRightsiPhone16ProMaxSangareddy
Advertisement
Next Article