In the case of Apple India Pvt. Ltd. v. Harish Chandra Mohanty & Anr., the Supreme Court annulled the assertion by the Odisha State Consumer Commission that Apple India was obligated to track a stolen iPhone using a unique identity number provided by the company. Despite compensating the complainant for the loss due to theft, Apple India objected to the imposition of law enforcement responsibilities beyond its scope as a product manufacturer. The Court found the Commission’s observation unwarranted and directed its removal from the order.
CASE DETAILS:
Apple India Pvt. Ltd. v. Harish Chandra Mohanty & Anr.
Special Leave Petition no. 18343 of 2021
Supreme Court
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma
BRIEF FACTS:
- In the present case, the respondent-complainant purchased an Apple iPhone with an insurance cover that included protection against theft.
- When the complainant’s iPhone was stolen, he filed an FIR and informed Apple India but no action was taken.
- Consequently, the complainant filed a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Forum seeking compensation.
- The District Forum ruled in favor of the complainant directing Apple India to reimburse the handset’s price, and pay compensation of Rs.40,000 and Rs.5,000 towards litigation costs.
- Apple India appealed the District Forum’s decision to the Odisha State Commission which upheld the ruling.
- Dissatisfied, Apple India filed a revision application with the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which was also dismissed.
- Disputing the NCDRC’s decision, Apple India filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.
OBSERVATIONS:
While Apple India agreed to compensate the complainant as directed by the Commission, it objected to the observation regarding its duty to trace stolen phones arguing that it would be unfairly burdened with law enforcement responsibilities beyond its scope as a product manufacturer.
Paragraph 14 of the State Commission’s order stated that Apple India failed in its duty to take immediate steps to trace the stolen iPhone despite receiving relevant documents from the complainant. It further asserted that it was Apple India’s responsibility to trace the stolen iPhone using the unique identity number provided for such purposes.
The Supreme Court after noting that the complainant had been compensated by Apple India for the loss due to the theft found the observation in paragraph 14 unwarranted. Consequently, the Court directed that paragraph 14 of the State Commission’s order dated November 26, 2020 be removed.
JUDGEMENT:
The Supreme Court annulled an assertion by the Odisha State Consumer Commission that Apple India had an obligation to track a stolen iPhone using a unique identity number provided by the company. Describing the observation by the Consumer Commission as “unwarranted”, the Supreme Court rendered it null and void.
