The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore, with B. Narayanappa as President, Jyothi N and Sharavathi S.M. as Members, dismissed a complaint against Apple Inc. due to the complainant’s failure to provide essential evidence such as tax invoice and warranty details.
Key Details
The complainant reported significant issues with his iPhone 13 Pro, particularly related to rapid battery drainage and continuous deterioration of battery health. Despite normal usage, he observed the battery life dropping to less than 5 hours quickly. Seeking assistance, he contacted Apple support to resolve the problem, expressing concerns that the battery health worsened daily after an iOS 17 update. Despite the device being within warranty, the complainant was dissatisfied with Apple’s response. As a result, feeling aggrieved, he filed a consumer complaint with the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore, Karnataka (“District Commission”) against Apple.
Apple responded by asserting that the complainant did not furnish essential details, such as the IMEI/Serial number of the iPhone 13 Pro, which prevented verification of the device’s repair history or registration details. Apple highlighted its adherence to stringent quality standards and rigorous customer satisfaction protocols. Additionally, Apple contested the complainant’s consumer status under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, arguing that he did not adequately demonstrate the purchase of the iPhone 13 Pro from Apple or specify the purchase date.
Findings of the District Commission
The District Commission concluded that the complainant did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims. He did not submit documents confirming the purchase of the iPhone 13 Pro from Apple, such as a tax invoice with payment details. Additionally, he failed to provide documentation demonstrating ownership, warranty information, or service records, and did not provide the IMEI or Serial Number of the device.
Thus, the District Commission determined that the complainant did not fulfill the burden of proof as required under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As a result, the District Commission dismissed the complaint against Apple Inc.
Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant
Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,
Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.
Human and Civil Rights Campaigner
President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in
YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum
NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWallet
WhatsApp +91 99877 43676