Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CONSUMER) 5
CONSUMER
SHAN MOHMMED – Appellant
Versus
APPLE INDIA – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. DC/83/CC/122/2023
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
- Case Details: The case is Shan Mohmmed vs. Apple India, decided by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Delhi, on 26-02-2026 (Case No. DC/83/CC/122/2023). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Complainant's Claim: The complainant purchased an iPhone 13 for Rs. 70,500/- on 10.02.2022. On 02.09.2022, the device was stolen. The complainant sought a refund and compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- plus litigation costs, alleging that the feature "iPhone findable after power off" failed to work despite the device displaying this message upon shutdown. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Complainant's Argument: The complainant stated that the display message "iPhone findable after power off" created a reasonable expectation that the phone could be traced even after shutdown. He claimed he followed all instructions on the website and contacted customer care/outlets without success, suffering trauma and harassment due to this deficiency in service. (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Opposite Party's Defense: Apple India argued there was no legal obligation to trace a stolen phone and that the warranty excludes theft cases if information is received from public authorities. They contended the "Find my" feature was not enabled prior to the theft and relied on Supreme Court judgments stating that tracing stolen phones is the duty of law enforcement, not the seller. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Court's Observation on "Find My" Feature: The Commission noted that the message "iPhone findable after power off" displayed on the screen did not have any asterisks (*), conditions, or guidance informing the user that the "Find my" feature needed to be enabled beforehand. The user would reasonably assume the statement was complete and unconditional. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Court's Reasoning: The Commission held that the judgments cited by the Opposite Party regarding the duty to find lost phones were not applicable because this case specifically dealt with the misleading nature of the "iPhone findable after power off" feature display. The lack of disclosure regarding the prerequisite of enabling "Find my" constituted a deficiency in service. (!)
- Order/Decision: The Commission found the Opposite Party guilty of deficiency in service for not providing complete information about the feature, leading the user to believe the phone was traceable without further action. Consequently, the OP was directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. (!) (!)
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SOUTH DELHI CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. DC/83/CC/122/2023 SHAN MOHMMED PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O. E-11/56, NEAR JAMA MASJID, HAUZRANI, MALVIYA NAGAR , NEW DELHI-110017 SOUTH,DELHI.
.......Complainant(s)
Versus APPLE INDIA PRESENT ADDRESS - 19TH FLOOR, CONCORDE TOWER C, UB CITY, NO.24, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BANGALORE 560001, INDIASOUTH,DELHI.
.......Opposite Party(s)
BEFORE:
MONIKA A. SRIVASTAVA , PRESIDENT KIRAN KAUSHAL , MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
NONE FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
NONE DATED: 26/02/2026
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016 Case No.122/2023 Shan Mohmmed S/o Late Shri Bhoore Khan R/o E-11/56 Near Jama Masjid Hauzrani, Malviya Nagar New Delhi-110017. .…Complainant VERSUS Apple India
19th Floor, Concorde Tower-C UB City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore-560001. ….Opposite Party Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member Present: Adv. Aneesh Ahmed and Adv. Md. Miskeen along with complainant.
Adv. Anchal Pundir for OP.
ORDER
Date of Institution:21.04.2023 Date of Order :26.02.2026 President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to OP to refund the amount of I-
phone along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.35,000/- as cost of litigation.
1. It is stated by the complainant that the complainant has been using I-phone since 2015 and trusted OP’s phone blindly because at the time of switching the power off a message is displayed “ I-phone findable after power off”. It is stated that this feature makes the user comfortable in case of event of loss or theft.
2. It is stated that the complainant upgraded his previous I-phone 11-Pro to I-phone-13 (white)
purchased on 10.02.2022 for a sum of Rs.70,500/-. Copy of the invoice is annexure-B. It is further stated that the complainant is proprietor of Weather Cool Services having approximately
500 clients and other important documents on the phone.
3. It is stated that on 02.09.2022 his I-phone along with other phones were stolen from his residence and in this regard FIR was lodged No.000990/2022 u/S 380 IPC Malviya Nagar. Copy of the FIR is annexure-C.
4. It is stated that complainant was very sure that he can trace out his phone as per the promise of the OP “I-phone findable after power off” but surprisingly the efforts of the complainant to trace out his mobile phone went in vain. Complainant then contacted customer care on the toll free number who denied help and asked the complainant to reach out the authorized company outlet. Complainant contacted the company outlet where also he was denied any help. Complainant visited official website of OP www.apple.com&www.icloud.com and followed the instructions given on the website but was unable to find the device.
5. It is stated by the complainant that he has done everything to recover his mobile phone but all went in vain because of which the complainant has suffered trauma, unnecessary harassment and agony due to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In this regard, complainant sent a legal notice dated 16.01.2023 which is annexure-D.
6. In their reply, OP have stated that the complaint has been filed with a malafide intention seeking undue benefits from OP. It is stated that there is no legal or factual merit. It is stated that there is no obligation whatsoever either under any contract i.e. warranty terms and conditions offered by the OP to the consumer or under any subsisting law requiring the OP to trace the stolen mobile phone of the complainant. It is stated that OP is neither responsible for losing the subject phone nor responsible for finding it and therefore there is no cause of action against OP.
7. It is stated that OP has provided its warranty terms publicly by uploading the same on its website which clearly excludes from its ambit cases of theft “if Apple receives information from releva
