A Mumbai consumer court has ruled that Apple India and retail chain Croma must refund ₹65,264 — the purchase price of an iPhone 11 — to the legal heirs of a deceased customer. The compensation comes after the company fails to repair a faulty microphone and their subsequent attempts to evade responsibility.
Device Defect, Vague Warranty Denial
The complainant, who purchased the iPhone on June 4, 2021, encountered persistent issues with the microphone: calls were rendered inaudible, effectively disabling the device for communication. Despite repeated attempts to address the issue at an Apple-authorised service centre, the company refused repairs, asserting “unauthorised modifications” voided the warranty, without specifying the exact violation.
When negotiations broke down, the customer filed a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (Suburban). Tragically, he passed away during the proceedings, but his heirs continued the legal fight.
Joint Liability Upheld Despite Manufacturer Reliance
The court rejected Apple’s defence, finding it insufficient to merely cite generic warranty clauses without detailing the specific issue. “Merely referring clauses … cannot be sufficient to attribute the particular defect,” the commission ruled.
Croma’s attempt to shift blame to Apple was similarly dismissed. Proceeding ex parte after the retailer failed to respond, the court held it jointly and severally liable, citing the principle of vicarious liability, and noting that once sold, the product’s functionality rested equally on both entities.
Court Directive: Beyond Just a Refund
In addition to rebating the purchase amount, the panel imposed a 6% annual interest from August 6, 2021 (the complaint’s filing date) until resolution. It also ordered ₹15,000 compensation for mental anguish and ₹2,000 toward legal costs.
Legal experts praised the decision. “This sets a precedent that manufacturers cannot use vague warranty clauses to deny service,” said a consumer rights advocate. Meanwhile, tech analysts argue that the ruling underscores the importance of transparent warranty terms and timely redressal mechanisms in India’s smartphone market.