2 weeks ago
Advocate Wins Rs 55,500 Payout in Defective Phone Warranty Case
A man named Rajbir Phogat bought a brand-new phone in January 2024 for about 65 thousand rupees.
Very soon, the phone started having problems: it got too hot, calls kept dropping, Bluetooth did not work, and the network was bad.
He took the phone to the service center many times, but the problems kept coming back.
The phone company said it would not help because the phone had been changed, or 'tampered with.'
They said the camera lens and the back glass were not the original parts.
A special consumer court in Rohtak listened to both sides.
The court said the company did not show real proof, like an expert report, that the phone had been tampered with.
So the court ordered the company to give back his money and pay extra to cover his trouble and court costs.
This decision helps protect customers by saying companies must prove their reasons before they can say no to a warranty.
Rajbir Phogat, a 58-year-old advocate, bought a phone for Rs 64,999 in January 2024 and reported recurring overheating, Bluetooth, call-drop and network issues.
The Rohtak District Consumer Commission ordered the US-based mobile company to refund Rs 45,500 for the defective phone.
The commission also awarded Rs 5,000 for mental agony and Rs 5,000 for litigation expenses, bringing the total payout to Rs 55,500.
The company had denied warranty coverage, alleging unauthorized modifications such as a non-genuine rear camera lens and altered back glass.
The commission ruled the company failed to provide independent technical evidence, such as an engineer's affidavit or expert report, to prove tampering.
- Who
- Rajbir Phogat (complainant, a 58-year-old advocate) against a US-based mobile company; the Rohtak District Consumer Commission issued the ruling.
- What
- The commission ordered a refund of Rs 45,500 plus compensation and litigation expenses after the company refused warranty service over alleged tampering it failed to prove.
- Where
- Rohtak (Haryana), India.
- When
- The phone was purchased in January 2024; the order was issued on August 7.
- Why
- The company could not substantiate its unauthorized-modification claim with independent technical evidence, which the commission held amounted to deficiency in service.
Consumer Side
Manufacturer / Service Centre Side
Cause of phone defects
Consumer Side
The phone had recurring defects such as overheating, Bluetooth connectivity, call drops and network issues that remained unresolved despite repeated service visits.
Manufacturer / Service Centre Side
The device had no manufacturing defect but had undergone unauthorized modifications, including a non-genuine rear camera lens and altered back glass.
Proof needed for warranty denial
Consumer Side
A mere internal job-sheet remark alleging tampering is insufficient; manufacturers must produce an engineer's affidavit or expert report to deny warranty coverage.
Manufacturer / Service Centre Side
The authorized service centre relied on its job-sheet records and device diagnosis and argued the complainant had not approached the commission with clean hands.
Key facts
- Complainant
- Rajbir Phogat, a 58-year-old advocate
- Phone price
- Rs 64,999
- Purchase date
- January 2024
- Refund ordered
- Rs 45,500
- Compensation (mental agony)
- Rs 5,000
- Litigation expenses
- Rs 5,000
- Total payout
- Rs 55,500
- Order date
- August 7
Quotes
Rohtak District Consumer Commission
Consumer protection authority overseeing warranty disputes in Rohtak
“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.”
indianexpress.com










