- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Kolkata District Commission Rules on Faulty MacBook Air Case: Apple, Reliance & Imagine Liable
Kolkata District Commission Rules on Faulty MacBook Air Case: Apple, Reliance & Imagine Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata Unit II, ruled against Apple India Pvt. Ltd., Systematix Media (Imagine), and Reliance Digital, finding them responsible for providing deficient services and engaging in unfair trade practices associated with the sale of a defective MacBook Air to the complainant. The Commission comprising Sukla Sengupta (President) and Reyazuddin Khan (Member) ordered the aforementioned entities to jointly refund the complainant ₹57,890 alongside compensation of ₹17,367 and ₹5,000 for litigation costs.
Abishek Kabir, a Kolkata student and loyal Apple customer, bought a MacBook Air from Reliance Digital. Initially priced at ₹61,990, he paid ₹54,990 thanks to a cashback offer along with a one-year warranty. However, soon after, the keyboard and trackpad developed faults. Despite repairs at the authorised service centre Imagine, the issues persisted. Within months, further problems emerged, including battery issues, logic board malfunction, and cursor disappearance. Despite contacting Apple and Imagine, Kabir received no satisfactory response. He then filed a consumer complaint against all three parties with the Kolkata District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
While acknowledging the Complainant's purchase of the MacBook Air, Apple contested claims of product deficiency. They emphasised their rigorous quality standards and testing procedures for products sold in India. In response to the Complainant's reported issues, they pointed to repairs undertaken by the authorised service centre Imagine. However, they clarified that further service requests, deemed out of warranty, were appropriately declined by Imagine. Citing a lack of evidence for faulty product or unfair practices, Apple requested the dismissal of the complaint.
Reliance Digital and Imagine opted not to appear before the District Commission.
The Commission acknowledged the Complainant's one-year warranty on the MacBook Air purchased from Reliance Digital but noted persistent technical issues from the outset. Despite repeated visits to the authorised service centre Imagine, the problems remained unresolved, incurring a total service charge of ₹2,900 for the Complainant.
The District Commission, analysing admissions and evidence, concluded that the MacBook Air, manufactured by Apple, exhibited inherent defects from its very purchase. Consequently, it held both Apple and Imagine liable for failing to provide quality service, demonstrating negligence, and engaging in unfair trade practices. This was further substantiated by the fact that the Complainant, a student, incurred unnecessary repair costs and endured significant mental distress and inconvenience due to the malfunctioning device.
For these failings, the District Commission ordered Reliance Digital, Apple, and Imagine to collectively or individually compensate the Complainant within 45 days. This compensation includes a full refund of ₹57,890 for the laptop's value and service charges, along with ₹17,367 for the mental distress and inconvenience suffered. Additionally, they are responsible for covering the Complainant's litigation costs of ₹5,000.