Bangalore District Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Apple Due To Lack Of Evidence Establishing Liability
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of B. Narayanappa(President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) dismissed a complaint against Apple Inc., noting that the Complainant failed to produce evidence such as tax invoice and warranty information. Brief Facts: The Complainant alleged significant issues with his...
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of B. Narayanappa(President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) dismissed a complaint against Apple Inc., noting that the Complainant failed to produce evidence such as tax invoice and warranty information.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant alleged significant issues with his iPhone 13 Pro, primarily concerning rapid battery drain and continuous degradation of battery health. According to him, even with normal usage, the battery life plummeted rapidly to less than 5 hours. He reached out to Apple support for assistance and a solution to rectify the problem. Additionally, he raised concerns about the battery health deteriorating daily following an iOS 17 update. Despite the device being under warranty, he felt unsatisfied with the response from Apple support. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore, Karnataka (“District Commission”) against Apple.
In response, Apple argued that the Complainant failed to provide crucial details such as the IMEI/Serial number of the iPhone 13 Pro which made it impossible to verify the device's repair history or registration details. It emphasized its commitment to high standards and rigorous quality tests for customer satisfaction. Further, it challenged the Complainant's consumer status under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and argued that he did not sufficiently demonstrate the purchase of the iPhone 13 Pro from them or specify the date of purchase.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission held that the Complainant failed to substantiate his claims with supporting documents. He did not furnish evidence confirming the purchase of the iPhone 13 Pro from Apple, such as a tax invoice indicating payment details. Moreover, he did not present documentation proving ownership, warranty information, or service records, nor did he provide the IMEI or Serial Number of the device.
Therefore, the District Commission held that the Complainant didn't discharge the burden of proof required under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Consequently, the District Commission dismissed the complaint against Apple Inc.
Case Title: Muhammad Musharaf K vs Apple Inc.
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 301/2023
Date of Order: 14.06.2024