Iphone Screen Non-Responsive On Installation Of New Version Of IOS; Product Beyond Warranty, Apple Not Liable; Bangalore Commission

Brief Facts:

Deepak Vasudeva Rao (“Complainant”), a resident of Banashankari III Stage, Bangalore, purchased an iPhone 11 in January 2021 for Rs 58,999. Trouble arose in September 2022 after he installed the iOS 16 update, which rendered the right side of his iPhone's touch screen unresponsive. The complainant contacted Apple support, followed their instructions to update to iOS 16.0.2 (which was intended to fix the touch screen issue), but the problem persisted. Seeking resolution, the complainant visited an Apple service centre on October 5, 2022. However, due to the expiry of the warranty nine months earlier, the service centre demanded Rs 20,000 for a trial-and-error touch screen replacement.

Meanwhile, the complainant got to know that Apple had acknowledged a touch screen defect in certain iPhone 11 units manufactured between November 2019 and May 2020. Apple initiated a replacement program offering free repairs for affected units. Despite the complainant’s device being manufactured in March 2020, his phone's serial number was not deemed eligible for the program. The led the consumer to file a consumer complainant against Apple in the Bangalore Urban-II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”).

The complainant asserted that despite his device's serial number not being explicitly listed as eligible for a replacement, the fundamental problem was identical. He highlighted the unjustness of Apple's refusal to provide a complimentary diagnosis for the issue, given the broader context of the acknowledged problem. Moreover, the complainant referenced his awareness of Apple's iPhone 11 Model Replacement Programme, asserting that his phone qualified in spirit, if not in strict technicality, for the free repair.

On the other hand, Apple characterized the complaint as frivolous and without foundation, underlining Apple's commitment to maintaining high product standards when sold through independent resellers and service agencies. It was also stressed that Apple operated under a "Principal to Principal" arrangement with its resellers, thereby distancing the company from responsibilities beyond the warranty period. It was pointed out that the complainant had declined to pay for diagnostics, even though his phone's warranty had expired, which hindered Apple's ability to provide free service. While acknowledging the existence of the iPhone 11 Model Replacement Programme, Apple maintained that the complainant’s device did not meet the specified eligibility criteria due to the absence of his phone's serial number from the list of affected units, thus precluding him from qualifying for free repairs.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that the complainant’s central claim was the unresponsiveness of his iPhone 11's touch screen after the installation of the iOS 16 update. While the complainant had followed Apple's instructions for troubleshooting and update, the issue persisted. However, the District Commission observed that the complainant had failed to conclusively establish that this constituted a deficiency of service on Apple's part. The District Commission highlighted that Apple had acknowledged the issue and provided a bug fixer update (iOS 16.0.2) for it. Therefore, the complainant’s inability to prove that Apple's actions amounted to a deficiency of service weakened his case.

Further, the District Commission emphasized that the complaint cantered on an iPhone that had surpassed its warranty period by nine months at the time of seeking diagnosis from the Apple service centre. This fact significantly impacted the scope of Apple's obligations. The District Commission noted that the complainant’s refusal to deposit the iPhone for diagnosis, even on a chargeable basis, hindered Apple's capacity to offer the service.

The District Commission scrutinized the complainant’s claim regarding the iPhone 11 Model Replacement Programme, through which Apple acknowledged the touch screen defect in specific units. While the complainant’s device was manufactured around the same time as the affected units, its serial number did not align with the list of eligible units. The District Commission found that this exclusion was based on the serial number's absence from the list and upheld Apple's stance that the complainant’s device did not meet the eligibility criteria.

Consequently, the District Commission dismissed the complainant’s case, noting that his iPhone 11 was no longer eligible for free diagnosis due to the expired warranty.

Case: Deepak Vasudeva Rao vs Apple India Private Limited.

Case No.: CC/365/2022

Advocate for the Complainant: Complainant in person

Advocate for the Respondent: Praveen Prabhakar

Click Here To Read/Download Order