iPhone 15 Overheating, Bluetooth Issues: Apple India Told To Refund Rs 45,500 To Customer

The Rohtak consumer commission has awarded a partial refund along with compensation and litigation costs in a dispute over an iPhone 15 purchased for Rs 64,999.

At the centre of the case was Apple's decision not to provide warranty service after its authorised service centre recorded alleged unauthorised modifications to the device.

Source : ABPLIVE AI

Show Quick Read

Key points generated by AI, verified by newsroom

• iPhone 15 owner faced persistent issues, Apple denied warranty.
• Commission ruled Apple's modification claims lacked technical proof.
• Apple ordered to refund Rs 45,500, plus Rs 10,000 costs.

Apple India has been directed to refund Rs 45,500 to an iPhone 15 owner after a consumer commission in Haryana found that the company had not adequately established its claim that the device had been unauthorisedly modified.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak, also ordered Apple to pay Rs 5,000 for mental agony and harassment and another Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses.

The commission's order, dated August 7, 2026, followed a complaint filed by advocate Rajbir Phogat over problems he said persisted with his iPhone 15 despite several attempts to get them resolved, reported TOI.

What The Commission Found

At the centre of the case was Apple's decision not to provide warranty service after its authorised service centre recorded alleged unauthorised modifications to the device.

The commission examined Apple's records but found that the company had not supported the allegation with independent technical evidence. No affidavit from the engineer or technician who inspected the phone was submitted, nor was an expert report produced to establish that the device had been tampered with.

The bench comprising president Nagender Singh Kadian and members Tripti Pannu and Vijender Singh also considered photographs submitted in the case. It said these did not conclusively establish the alleged unauthorised modification.

The commission held that an internal observation recorded in a service job sheet, by itself, was insufficient to establish a violation of the warranty terms.

It further noted that the phone was returned to Phogat without repair even though the reported issues had arisen during the warranty period.

Customer's Complaints Over iPhone 15

Phogat bought the iPhone 15 for Rs 64,999 in January 2024. According to his complaint, he experienced overheating, Bluetooth connectivity problems and network-related issues from the beginning.

His first visit to an authorised service centre resulted in changes to the phone's settings, after which he was told that the device should function properly.

When the issues continued, he contacted Apple's customer care. On April 29, 2024, he updated the iPhone following instructions provided by the company's customer care team. He was told that the network and call-drop problems would not continue after the update, but he said they persisted.

The customer later returned to the service centre and was advised to purchase iCloud storage. He subscribed to the service for Rs 75 per month on May 31, 2024.

He was also advised to try another mobile network provider because the connectivity problems could potentially be related to the carrier. Phogat changed his connection from Jio to Airtel on May 29, 2024, but said the problems did not stop.

He eventually approached the consumer commission seeking replacement of the device or a refund of the purchase price. He also sought compensation for mental agony, disruption to his work and litigation expenses.

Apple's Defence In The Case

Apple India denied that the iPhone had a manufacturing defect.

The company said its authorised service centre had found dust particles in the buttons, an allegedly unauthorised rear camera lens and back glass, scratches on the enclosure and an issue with the rear microphone.

On that basis, Apple argued that the device had undergone unauthorised modifications and that such changes were not covered by its one-year warranty.

The company also said Phogat had declined to send the device to a repair centre for further screening after being informed about the alleged modifications.

The authorised service centre separately argued that the customer had not produced material showing that the reported defects existed from the date of purchase or had been brought to the respondents' attention.

Why Apple Was Held Liable

The commission relied on material produced by Phogat, including the purchase invoice, screenshots showing failed calls and a June 2024 job sheet documenting complaints concerning network connectivity, overheating and Bluetooth.

While Apple's service records referred to alleged modifications involving the rear camera lens and back glass, the commission found that the claim had not been adequately substantiated.

It observed that the respondents had not produced technical evidence capable of establishing that the alleged modifications were responsible for the reported defects or that the customer had breached the warranty.

The commission concluded that, without reliable evidence of unauthorised modification, Apple was not justified in refusing warranty service and returning the phone without rectifying the repeatedly reported problems.

It consequently held that there was a deficiency in service and that Apple, as the manufacturer, was liable.

Why Refund Is Rs 45,500 Instead Of Rs 64,999

The commission did not grant Phogat the full purchase price of Rs 64,999.

Instead, it ordered a 30 per cent deduction towards depreciation, bringing the refund amount to Rs 45,500.

Apple has been directed to pay the refund with 9 per cent annual interest from June 10, 2024, the date the complaint was filed, until the amount is paid.

The company must additionally pay Rs 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.

Phogat is required to hand over the iPhone to Apple when the payment is made. The commission has directed compliance within one month from the date of receipt of the order's copy.