Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
In cases involving mobile phones seized as evidence or property, courts have directed their return with conditions, emphasizing that defect or damage caused after the warranty or guarantee period is not a basis for liability ["RISHIKESH vs STATE REP BY - Madras"], ["Tamizharasi vs State - Madras"].
Judgments related to mobile phones after updation outside guarantee period - Analysis and conclusion:
References:- ["SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. vs SURBIR SINGH AND OTHERS - Consumer State"]- ["RISHIKESH vs STATE REP BY - Madras"]- ["Tamizharasi vs State - Madras"]- ["AMAR KUMAR PANDEY vs STATE - Delhi"]- ["AMAR KUMAR PANDEY vs STATE - Delhi"]- ["AMAR KUMAR PANDEY vs STATE - Delhi"]- ["AMAR KUMAR PANDEY vs STATE - Delhi"]- ["AMAR KUMAR PANDEY vs STATE - Delhi"]- ["AMAR KUMAR PANDEY vs STATE - Delhi"]- ["AMAR KUMAR PANDEY vs STATE - Delhi"]- ["AMAR KUMAR PANDEY vs STATE - Delhi"]- ["AMAR KUMAR PANDEY vs STATE - Delhi"]
In recent years, many smartphone users have reported a frustrating green line appearing on their screens after software updates. This vertical green line can render the display unusable, sparking debates on manufacturer responsibility—especially when it happens outside the warranty period. If you're facing this issue, you're not alone, and understanding relevant court judgments can guide your next steps.
This article explores case judgments related to mobile phone green line issues after updates, not within the guarantee period. We'll analyze key decisions under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, highlight legal principles, and provide practical insights. Note: This is general information based on public judgments and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The green line problem typically manifests as a persistent vertical line on OLED or AMOLED screens, often linked to software updates, hardware stress, or manufacturing defects. Users of brands like OnePlus, Samsung, and others have complained about it post-update. While manufacturers sometimes offer goodwill repairs, legal obligations differ significantly based on warranty status.
When the issue arises after the warranty expires, courts generally limit free remedies, emphasizing factors like device condition and tampering. Let's dive into the legal precedents.
The core query is: What do case judgments say about mobile phone green line issues after updates, outside the guarantee period? Courts have addressed similar mobile defects under the Consumer Protection Act, focusing on warranty expiry and device tampering.
Defect on mobile phone had been complained to OPs, repeatedly within warranty period one year from date of its purchase. This being so; in strict legal sense appellant-manufacturer has miserably failed to prove its case. ... Software and network problem, as existed in subject mobile set, owing to its non-updation, cannot be construed to carry any manufacturing defect in subject mobile phone handset. Software/network was updated. .......
with the case and if the seized mobile phone is kept at idle, it may deteriorate in a short period. ... phone (Apple iPhone 13, Green colour). ... It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said mobile phone is no way connected with the case and if the seized mobile phone is kept at idle, it may deteriorate in a short period and ....
It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the Mobile and not an accused in this case. The accused, who is the brother of the petitioner, taken the Mobile Phone of the petitioner for some urgency, since his mobile was not working. Latter, the same has been seized in this case. ... He would further submit that the accused in this case is her brother and the petitioner is no way connected with the offen....
He further submits that the recovered mobile phone was identified by the complainant but no bill has been produced that shows that it belonged to the complainant. He further prays that Rahul be released on the period already undergone. ... Process of law was set into motion on 12th June 2013 at about 5:00 P.M., on receipt of information regarding robbery of the caller's mobile phone and some money at Railway Line, Old Seelampur, Delhi. Aforesaid information was recorded vide DD No.24A ....
With respect to recovery of phone, the location of the phone has not been mentioned. Phone was not identified by the prosecutrix and CDRs of the phone were also not exhibited. ... At the appellant’s instance, the mobile phone of prosecutrix was also recovered which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/C. ... Thereafter, he remained in contact with her over phone. Since she was not abl....
With respect to recovery of phone, the location of the phone has not been mentioned. Phone was not identified by the prosecutrix and CDRs of the phone were also not exhibited. ... Contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the knife in question has not been put to the prosecutrix and thus cannot be said to be related to the offence deserves to be rejected for the reason the prosecutrix has testified that she was stabbed by....
With respect to recovery of phone, the location of the phone has not been mentioned. Phone was not identified by the prosecutrix and CDRs of the phone were also not exhibited. ... At the appellant’s instance, the mobile phone of prosecutrix was also recovered which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/C. ... Thereafter, he remained in contact with her over phone. Since she was not abl....
With respect to recovery of phone, the location of the phone has not been mentioned. Phone was not identified by the prosecutrix and CDRs of the phone were also not exhibited. ... Contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the knife in question has not been put to the prosecutrix and thus cannot be said to be related to the offence deserves to be rejected for the reason the prosecutrix has testified that she was stabbed by....
With respect to recovery of phone, the location of the phone has not been mentioned. Phone was not identified by the prosecutrix and CDRs of the phone were also not exhibited. ... At the appellant’s instance, the mobile phone of prosecutrix was also recovered which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/C. ... Thereafter, he remained in contact with her over phone. Since she was not abl....
He identified the mobile phone and the photograph therein before the Court. 8. ... He also admitted Hemraj producing the mobile phone make Nokia Ex.P-10/4 having the photo of Gudia and Hemraj which mobile phone was sealed and seized vide memo Ex.PW-3/A by PW-21 and deposited in the malkhana. ... Due to this Hemraj got annoyed and in anger showed his photograph along with Gudia on his mobile phone. On seeing the photograph, Raj Kumar ....
EVIDENCE RELATED TO THE MOBILE PHONE, RECOVERED FROM THE APPELLANT 15. EVIDENCE RELATED TO THE MOBILE PHONE, RECOVERED FROM THE APPELLANT 15. EVIDENCE RELATED TO THE MOBILE PHONE, RECOVERED FROM THE APPELLANT 15. EVIDENCE RELATED TO THE MOBILE PHONE, RECOVERED FROM THE APPELLANT 15. PW3-son of the deceased has this to say: On 10.09.2008, his brother told him that some persons had committed murder of his father causing injuries with sharp-edged weapon and took away goods/articles from the almirah. EVIDENCE RELAT....
Now when the phone was dead and had been found tampered and also, it is not the respondent No.1’s case that the phone at the time, when it was delivered to the appellant was within the warranty period, learned District Forum was not justified, in directing the appellant to return the mobile, after due repair, or to pay a sum of Rs. 14,000/-, on account of the cost of the phone. However, in view of the fact that the defective mobile phone had been handed over to the appellant, only this much direction could have been issued to the appellant that the phone be returned, withou....
Warranty period having already expired (we have assumed so for the reasons that the respondent No.1 did not state that the warranty period was still available and also, it having specifically been mentioned in the job card that the phone was out of warranty), there was no question of respondent No.1 seeking the relief that the mobile set be repaired without charging anything or it should be replaced or its price be refunded. However, in view of the fact that the defective mobile phone had been handed over to the appellant, only this much direction could have been issued to the appellant that....
They could not give any satisfactory answer to the queries put to them. They disclosed their involvement in the present case pursuant to which the information had been marked to PW-9, who had formally arrested the appellants in the instant case. Accused Aslam had produced the Motorola mobile phone which was seized vide memo Ex. PW-1/A. Accused Gulzar also produced a mobile phone of Sony Ericson (not related to this case).
It was taken to the work place of the respondent, who removed the defect. Respondent was again approached, when the set was retained by the respondent with the assurance that it will be repaired soon, but till the filing of complaint, it had not been delivered back to the appellant. So, the appellant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking refund of the price of the phone as also compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000 and litigation expenses. Again, within warranty period, mobile phone developed some defect.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
