Man buys new phone on Big Billion Day sale, faces battery issues, wins Rs 84,000 payout

A consumer body in Punjab has directed Apple India, Flipkart and the seller to refund Rs 54,846 to a consumer who purchased an iPhone 14 with alleged battery-drain issues during the Big Billion Days Sale, and said that a consumer purchasing a branded product is entitled to expect coordinated and effective redressal from all entities involved in marketing and servicing the product.

Holding them guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the bench of presiding member Harveen Bhardwaj and members Jyotsna and Jaswant Singh Dhillon of the Jalandhar Consumer Commission also awarded Rs 20,000 compensation and Rs 10,000 litigation costs.

“The product in question bears the brand, warranty, and after-sales ecosystem of Apple. A consumer purchasing a branded product is entitled to expect coordinated and effective redressal from all entities involved in marketing and servicing the product. Internal arrangements between the manufacturer and reseller, and service provider cannot be used to defeat the legitimate claim of the complainant,” the commission said on June 11.

The bench added that the complainant, who is the consumer, has approached Apple within a few days of the purchase, alleging abnormal battery drainage in the premium mobile phone. Hence, the burden shifts upon Apple to prove that the product was not defective.

The commission highlighted that Flipkart cannot escape its liability by arguing that the buyer had not directly entered into a contract with the intermediary. “It is proven that the entire transaction and correspondence were done through the Flipkart online portal. It is proven that the complainant purchased the product through the Flipkart website; there exists a consumer and the service provider between the complainant and Flipkart,” it said.

Big Billion Days sale, faulty iPhone 14

The complainant purchased an Apple iPhone 14 (128 GB) through Flipkart during the Big Billion Days Sale on October 7, 2023, for Rs 54,499, out of which a sum of Rs 6,300 was adjusted under an exchange offer against his old mobile phone, and the balance amount was paid online.

The mobile phone was delivered to the complainant on October 9, 2023. It is averred that at the time of delivery, the complainant noticed that the box did not bear the original Apple seal, and the same was opened in the presence of the delivery executive, whose opening of the package was also videographed by the complainant.

Story continues below this ad

The complainant further alleged that immediately after the commencement of use, the battery of the iPhone started draining abnormally and was unable to retain its charge for a reasonable period.

The complainant approached the customer care of Flipkart within the replacement period and requested a replacement of the handset. However, he was directed to approach the Apple authorised service centre.

The complainant alleged that when he visited the service centre, neither was the handset replaced nor was any job sheet issued regarding the reported defect. Despite repeated representations and legal notice, the grievance remained unresolved, compelling him to approach this commission.

No hardware defect found: Apple India

In its written submission, Apple India asserted that it merely manufactures and sells Apple products through independent resellers and that after-sales services are provided through independent Apple-authorised service providers.

Story continues below this ad

It was further pleaded that when the complainant visited the authorised service centre, diagnostic tests were conducted and no hardware defect was found in the handset. According to Apple, the complainant was advised to update the software of the device, but declined to leave the handset for such a process. It was further pleaded that customer support remained available to the complainant and no deficiency in service could be attributed to Apple India.

Complaint false, vague: Flipkart

Flipkart also filed a written statement, and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious and has been filed only to get undue benefits at the cost of the opposite party.

It is further averred that the present complaint deserves dismissal because the complainant had purchased the product from the seller through the online platform of the answering opposite party. It was submitted that the business of the OP falls within the definition of an ‘intermediary’ under Section 2 (1) (w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Apple must prove phone had no defect: Court

The burden shifts upon Apple to prove that the product was not defective at all and it is functioning normally, but they failed to discharge the onus.

When a customer approaches the service centre, a job sheet is issued during product inspection, which is the primary record of the complaint and action taken, but Apple has not produced any documentary evidence to rebut the allegations. This clearly shows that the service centre never undertook a comprehensive inspection.

Flipkart claimed exemption from liability under Section 79 of the IT Act, but the consumer protection rules for e-commerce entities, notified in 2020, provide that a marketplace e-commerce entity can avail this exemption only if it complies with the conditions laid down in sections 79(2) and (3) of the IT Act and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011

The bills even the CD clearly shows that there was a seal of Flipkart, and Flipkart cannot be absolved of their responsibility and liability merely saying that they are not service providers and are protected under the IT Act.

No reason has been assigned as to why the battery of the newly purchased phone was drained, and the complainant had to suffer the issue with the battery.

Final order

Partly allowing the complainant, the commission directed that the opposite parties jointly and severally refund Rs 54,846 to the complainant. Further, they were directed to pay a compensation of Rs 20,000 for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs 10,000 as litigation expenses.

Story continues below this ad

Significance of ruling

This judgment is significant because it holds e-commerce platforms like Flipkart liable for defective products and rejects “intermediary” immunity under the IT Act when they facilitate transactions. It also ensures manufacturers cannot bypass responsibility through third-party resellers, reinforcing consumer rights and brand accountability.

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Chandigarh contact: 0172-2700183) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.