The Supreme Court of India has set a precedent regarding the responsibilities of electronic manufacturers, specifically Apple India, in the context of tracing stolen devices. The apex court’s decision comes as a significant clarification, stating that Apple cannot be expected to trace stolen iPhones using their unique identity numbers. This ruling addresses the contentious issue of the extent to which companies are responsible for the recovery of stolen goods.
Also read- Supreme Court Clarifies: “SC Has No Power Of Superintendence Over High Courts” (lawchakra.in)
The case, which saw Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma presiding, revolved around an appeal filed by Apple India against an order by the Odisha State Consumer Commission. The Commission had previously ruled that Apple was obligated to assist in locating a stolen iPhone, leveraging the device’s unique identity number. This directive was challenged by Apple India, leading to a pivotal review by the Supreme Court.
The origin of the dispute traces back to a consumer’s complaint after their iPhone, insured against theft, was stolen. Despite reporting the theft to both the police and Apple India, the company did not take steps to track the device, prompting the consumer to seek legal recourse. The District Consumer Forum initially ruled in favor of the consumer, a decision upheld by the Odisha State Consumer Commission, which emphasized Apple’s supposed duty to trace the stolen device.
However, the Supreme Court’s examination of the case led to a different conclusion. The bench highlighted that the observation made by the Odisha State Consumer Commission was “unwarranted,” effectively overturning the directive that Apple India act akin to a law enforcement agency in recovering stolen products. The court’s decision was informed by the argument that imposing such a responsibility on Apple India—or any company—was unjustified and beyond the scope of their obligations.
The Supreme Court’s ruling not only absolved Apple India of the duty to trace stolen iPhones using their unique identity numbers but also ordered the removal of the contentious paragraph from the State Commission’s order. This judgment is a clear indication of the judiciary’s stance on the limitations of corporate responsibility in matters of stolen property, particularly in the context of high-value electronics.
This decision is poised to have far-reaching implications for manufacturers and consumers alike, setting a legal boundary on the expectations placed on companies regarding the recovery of stolen goods. It underscores the principle that while corporations like Apple are responsible for the quality and service of their products, they cannot be compelled to undertake the role of law enforcement in tracking stolen items.
The Supreme Court’s clarification serves as a guide for future cases involving stolen property and the extent of manufacturer’s responsibilities, ensuring a balanced approach that respects both consumer rights and corporate limitations.
FOLLOW US ON ☓ FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES