Kerala consumer court directs Apple to replace iPhone 13 battery, awards Rs 45,000 compensation

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) in Alappuzha, Kerala, has directed Apple India Pvt Ltd to replace the battery of an iPhone 13 free of cost or, if the device is found to be irreparable, to replace the handset itself, after holding the company guilty of deficiency in service, as per the order in Vani S Prasad v Apple India Pvt Ltd, as per a Bar and Bench report.

The commission further ordered Apple to pay Rs 45,000 as compensation along with Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs to the complainant, an Ayurveda doctor, who had alleged that the phone developed serious battery-related issues within six months of purchase. The order was passed on September 26 by District Forum President PR Sholy and members CK Lekhama after concluding that the company had failed to provide proper service.

According to the complaint, the woman had purchased an iPhone 13 with 128 GB storage in November 2023 for Rs 53,499. Within six months of purchase, she began experiencing severe battery drain and overheating issues and, in May 2024, the phone abruptly switched off despite displaying a 50 per cent charge. On inspection, she noticed that the battery had swollen, causing the screen to partially detach from the phone body, rendering the device unsafe for use.

The complainant then approached an authorised Apple service centre, which confirmed the defects but declined to provide warranty service and instead issued a repair quotation of Rs 50,906. Apple informed the forum that the battery was a consumable component not covered under warranty and further alleged that the device had sustained accidental and cosmetic damage, which was excluded under its limited warranty terms.

However, the consumer forum examined Apple’s warranty conditions and noted that while consumable parts such as batteries are generally excluded, the warranty explicitly provides coverage where the failure arises from a manufacturing defect. An expert commissioner, a qualified mobile phone technician appointed by the forum, inspected the handset and concluded that the battery swelling was abnormal, had occurred within six months of purchase, and was not caused by misuse, mishandling or external damage, thereby pointing to a manufacturing defect.

The forum also took note of the fact that the Apple service centre technician who examined the phone had failed to appear before the court despite being required to do so. Based on the evidence, the commission held that Apple could not deny warranty benefits by selectively relying on exclusion clauses when the defect clearly fell within the exception for manufacturing defects, and concluded that the refusal to repair or replace the battery amounted to deficiency in service.

In its final directions, the commission ordered Apple to replace the battery free of cost and provide a fresh six-month warranty or, if the device could not be repaired, replace the handset with a new one, in addition to paying compensation and litigation costs. Advocate Azhar Ahammed appeared for the complainant, while Apple India Pvt Ltd was represented by advocate Sreedevi S, and advocates P Jayabal Menon and IB Suseel appeared on behalf of the authorised service centre, Ample Technologies Pvt Ltd.