{"id":34073,"date":"2026-10-08T10:09:31","date_gmt":"2026-10-08T10:09:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/?p=34073"},"modified":"2026-10-08T10:09:31","modified_gmt":"2026-10-08T10:09:31","slug":"iphone-burst-inside-mans-pocket-injured-thumb-consumer-court-orders-apple-to-replace-it-pay-rs-36139-compensation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/?p=34073","title":{"rendered":"iPhone burst inside man’s pocket, injured thumb; consumer court orders Apple to replace it, pay Rs 36,139 compensation |"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"iPhone<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
AI generated image used for representative purpose<\/span><\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

NEW DELHI: A district consumer commission in Uttar Pradesh has directed Apple India and an electronics retailer to either replace an iPhone<\/a> or refund its Rs 29,500 price after the phone burst inside a consumer\u2019s pocket and injured his thumb. The commission also awarded Rs 36,139 for his treatment and Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses.The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aligarh, passed the order on October 1, 2026, after finding that the mobile phone was defective and holding the manufacturer and its local seller deficiency in service.<\/p>\n

Background of the case<\/b><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

According to the commission order, Premraj Singh (the complainant) had purchased an iPhone on August 14, 2020, for Rs 29,500.The complainant alleged that the phone suddenly started heating up on July 15, 2023. He complained to Apple<\/a> and was allegedly told that such heating could sometimes happen.The phone heated up again on August 5, 2023, following which he informed the local seller, Bittu Bhaiji Electronics.“On 15.7.2023 the mobile set was suddenly heated up. Complainant made oral complaint to op no.1 who assured that sometimes it happens but on 5.8.2023 the mobile set was again heated up and op no.2 was informed who had ignored,” as noted in the order.On August 12, 2023, at around 8 am, the mobile phone allegedly burst while it was inside the complainant’s pocket, injuring his thumb. He subsequently lodged a complaint at a police station.The following day, he allegedly discovered that photographs and videos from his marriage had also been damaged in the incident. The order said he became distressed and was admitted to a hospital.The complainant also informed the commission that he and his wife later held another marriage celebration and arranged fresh photography and videography.He then claimed Rs 51 lakh towards the expense of celebrating the marriage again and Rs 48 lakh towards medical treatment. His total claim was stated to be Rs 99.29 lakh, but he sought Rs 50 lakh keeping in view the commission\u2019s pecuniary jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

Commission’s finding<\/b><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

The bench of President Hasnain Qureshi <\/span>and member Purnima Singh Rajpoot <\/span>noted that the Apple\u2019s response had been filed beyond the prescribed period and the local seller had not even contested the case.After considering the evidence on record, the commission observed that there was no rebuttal of the consumer\u2019s pleadings.\u201cAs there is no rebuttal of the pleadings of the complainant and therefore it is held that the mobile set was defective and there was deficiency in service,\u201d the commission said.The commission also examined the consumer\u2019s medical records. It noted that he had been admitted to Varun Hospital from August 13 to August 20, 2023, for treatment of injuries caused by the phone bursting.According to the records produced before the commission, he incurred Rs 36,139 towards treatment.“We hereby direct the ops either to replace the iPhone by new iPhone or to repay its value Rs.29500 to the complainant with pendente lite and future interest at the rate 10 percent per annum. Ops are also directed to pay compensation Rs.36139 and Rs.5000 as litigation expenses,” the commission concluded.The commission therefore held that he was entitled to compensation for the medical expenses. It did not, however, award the much larger amounts claimed for holding another marriage celebration or for the alleged mental shock and depression.<\/p>\n

Final order<\/b><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

The consumer commission directed the opposite parties to:<\/p>\n

\n