Consumer court directs Apple and Croma to refund the iPhone cost, ruling both the manufacturer and the seller jointly liable for the defective product and deficiency in service after complaint by the customer’s heirs.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: In a crucial consumer rights ruling, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (Suburban) has ordered Apple India Pvt Ltd and Infiniti Retail Ltd (Croma) to jointly refund Rs. 65,264, the cost of an iPhone 11, to the legal heirs of a deceased customer, after both companies failed to resolve a microphone defect in the device.
The order, passed earlier this month, underscores the liability of both the manufacturer and the retailer when a product is found to be defective, and marks a strong stand by the commission against deficiency in service.
ALSO READ: Flipkart Fined Rs.13,000 by Consumer Court for Unjust iPhone Order Cancellation
Background of the Case
The case began when a customer purchased an iPhone 11 for Rs. 65,264 from a Croma outlet in Mumbai on June 4, 2021. Soon after the purchase, the device started malfunctioning, specifically, the microphone did not work during speakerphone calls.
The customer approached an Apple-authorised service centre, where repair was denied on the grounds of alleged “unauthorised modifications,” which Apple claimed voided the warranty.
Despite sending multiple complaints and follow-up emails, the customer received no resolution from either Apple or Croma.
Left with no alternative, he approached the consumer commission for redress. Unfortunately, during the course of the proceedings, the customer passed away. However, the case was pursued by his legal heirs, leading to the recent ruling in their favour.
ALSO READ: World Consumer Rights Day 2025: Step-by-Step Guide on How to File a Consumer Complaint
Findings of the Court
The Consumer Commission held both Apple and Croma to be “jointly and severally liable” for the defective iPhone, stating that both the manufacturer and the retailer had failed to address the microphone issue adequately.
Apple’s defence, that the device had undergone “unauthorised modifications”, was rejected due to the absence of concrete evidence or any clear reference to specific warranty breaches. The Court noted,
“Merely referring to clauses of warranty terms and conditions cannot be sufficient to attribute the particular defect as a certain unauthorized modification or damage to software.”
Croma, which did not appear before the commission and claimed the defect was solely Apple’s responsibility, was also held accountable.
ALSO READ: Legal Explainer | How to File a Case in Consumer Court? Step-by-Step Guide
The commission made it clear that once a product is sold through a retail outlet, the seller assumes responsibility for ensuring it is free of defects and remains serviceable. Applying the principle of vicarious liability, the commission concluded that sellers cannot escape liability for post-sale grievances.
The Court said,
“Once the product was sold through their outlet, they assumed responsibility for ensuring that the product was free from defects and serviceable.”
As a result, the commission directed both Apple and Croma to refund Rs. 65,264 with 6% interest per annum from August 6, 2021, until the date of actual payment. Additionally, the legal heirs were awarded Rs. 15,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 2,000 towards legal expenses.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on iPhone
Click Here to Read Our Reports on the Consumer Commission
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
