Alappuzha Consumer Commission Holds Apple Liable For Manufacturing Defect In Iphone 13 Battery, Orders Free Replacement

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha, comprising P.R. Sholy (President in Charge) and C.K. Lekhamma (Member), held Apple liable for deficiency of service due to a manufacturing defect in the iPhone 13 battery. The Commission allowed the complaint in part and ordered Apple to replace the battery free of cost and provide a fresh six-month warranty.

Brief Facts

The complainant, Vani Prasad, purchased an iPhone 13 (128 GB) on 24 November 2023 from Raviz Digital Hub (O.P. No.3). Within six months of purchase, the device began exhibiting serious functional defects, including abnormal overheating and rapid battery drain, even when not in active use. The battery performance deteriorated significantly, with the phone heating up within minutes of operation.

On 22-05-2024, the phone abruptly switched off despite showing a 50% battery charge. When the complainant inspected the device, the battery was found to be bulging, and the device itself felt heavier than usual. On 24-05-2024, the complainant submitted the device to the authorised service centre (O.P. No.2) due to the persistent weak battery performance and the visibly swollen battery. During the inspection, the service centre confirmed that the battery had indeed swollen, which caused the screen to detach from the device. The service personnel also noted a dent and a crack on the bottom.

On 29-05-2024, the complainant wrote to the opposite parties requesting that the device be repaired under warranty, but did not receive any response. Subsequently, on 06-06-2024, the complainant received a quotation under Ticket No. SEBKT6B1046DMX, demanding Rs. 50,906/- as service charges. The accompanying diagnostic report stated that the device was ineligible for warranty service, citing cosmetic and accidental damage (a dent and crack) as the basis for denial. They also contended that the battery is a consumable part excluded from warranty coverage.

The complainant filed a complaint with the National Consumer Helpline portal, which was closed after the opposite parties denied free service. Aggrieved by the refusal to extend warranty benefits despite the defect arising within the warranty period, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha, against Apple India Private Limited (O.P. No.1), its authorised service centre Ample Technologies Private Limited (O.P. No.2), and the dealer Raviz Digital Hub (O.P. No.3).

Arguments by the Opposite Parties

Opposite Party No.1 (Apple India Pvt. Ltd.) contended that the complaint was not maintainable, asserting that Apple sells and services products through independent resellers and authorised service centres on a principal-to-principal basis. It was submitted that inspection revealed a bulged battery along with a dent and crack on the bottom enclosure, amounting to cosmetic and accidental damage excluded under the one-year limited warranty. Apple further argued that the battery is a consumable part not covered under warranty and, therefore, the device was rightly declared ineligible for free repair, with an out-of-warranty replacement offered for ₹50,906. Apple denied any deficiency in service or liability to compensate.

Opposite Party No.2, Ample Technologies Pvt. Ltd., contended that it strictly followed Apple's prescribed diagnostic procedures and guidelines. Upon inspection, it reported a bulged battery with a detached display, along with a dent and crack on the bottom enclosure, and accordingly concluded that the device was ineligible for warranty service. It was submitted that only an out-of-warranty replacement could be offered and that all actions were taken in accordance with company requirements and technical guidelines. Opposite Party No.2 denied any deficiency in service.

Opposite Party No.3, Raviz Digital Hub, having failed to appear, was proceeded ex parte.

Observations by the commission

The Commission observed that the abnormal swelling of the battery, which caused the display to detach within six months of purchase, clearly indicated a defect in materials or workmanship and not normal battery degradation. Relying on the evidence of the Expert Commissioner (PW2) and the expert report, the Commission held that the defect in the complainant's iPhone was attributable to a manufacturing defect in the battery.

The Commission noted that the dent and crack relied upon by the opposite parties were insignificant, as inspection confirmed that they had no effect on battery performance, voltage, or internal components, and were not the result of mishandling. It was further observed that the battery voltage was defective and that the phone functioned only when connected to an external power source, thereby necessitating battery replacement.

The Commission further held that the warranty clause relied upon by Opposite Party No.1 expressly contains an exception for failures arising due to defects in materials or workmanship, which squarely applied to the present case. Accordingly, the Commission allowed the complaint in part, holding that Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 were guilty of deficiency in service for wrongfully denying warranty coverage. Opposite Party No.3 was exonerated, as the complainant had not approached it with any request for warranty service or repairs, and no allegations of deficiency in service were made out against it.

The commission ordered that:

• O.P. No.1 must replace the iPhone battery free of cost and give a fresh six-month warranty, and if battery replacement or performance fails, it must replace the phone with a new one with a new warranty.

• O.P No.1 must pay ₹45,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 as litigation costs.

• If unpaid, the compensation will carry 9% interest from 08.08.2024.

Case Title: Vani S Prasad vs Apple India Pvt.Ltd & Ord DC/554/CC No.358/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order