Apple Has No Duty To Trace Stolen iPhone Using Unique Identity Number : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court obliterated an observation made by the Odisha State Consumer Commission that Apple India has the duty to trace a stolen iPhone with the help of a unique identity number provided by it.

The Supreme Court stated that the observation made by the Consumer Commission was "unwarranted".

The Bench Comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing an appeal filed by Apple India against the Consumer Commission's order, which was passed in a complaint filed over stolen iPhone.

While Apple India agreed to compensate the complainant as directed by the Commission, it took objection to the observation made regarding its duty to trace stolen phones.

It was submitted by Apple India that if such observations/directions continue to remain, the company would become a "law-enforcing agency of recovering lost products" marketed by the petitioner.

Paragraph 14 of the order of the State Commission stated as follows :

“From the above observations, it is clear that on receipt of complaint from complainant, it was the duty of O.P. No. 2 (Apple India )to take proper steps to trace the stolen mobile. O.P. No. 2 failed to take immediate steps even after receipt of relevant documents from complainant. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part O.P. No. 2. It was the responsibility of O.P. No. 2 to trace the stolen iPhone with the help of unique identity number provided by O.P. No. 2 specifically for the purpose of stealing missing and damage caused to iPhone."

“Having considered the submissions and having perused the above paragraph, we feel that the said observations were not warranted. Accordingly, we direct that paragraph 14 shall stand obliterated from the order dated 26th November, 2020 of the State Commission.”, the Supreme Court observed.

Background

In the instant case, the respondent-complainant purchased the Apple iPhone with an insurance cover which includes coverage for theft. The complainant lodged an FIR after his iPhone was stolen, and also intimidated the petitioner-Apple India (herein to be referred as Opposite Party No.2) about the theft, however, when no action was taken by O.P. No.2 then the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum. The District Forum directed Apple India to pay the price of the said handset and a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation to the complainant.

Against the District Forum's order, the petitioner-Apple India preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The appeal came to be rejected by the State Commission's with the impugned observation as contained in para 14 of the commission's order.

Against the aforementioned observation of the State Commission, the petitioner moved a revision application before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”), which also came to be dismissed.

Challenging the dismissal of the revision application by the NCDRC that the petitioner-Apple India preferred an SLP before the Supreme Court.

Case Details : Apple India Pvt Ltd v. Harish Chandra Mohanty and others

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 138

Click here to read the order