Hisar District Commission Holds Xiaomi India Liable for Negligence

July 2, 2024

The Hisar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, with Jagdeep Singh as President, Rajni Goyat and Amita Agarwal as Members, held Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. and its authorized service center accountable for negligence and unfair trade practices. This decision stemmed from their failure to repair a smartphone afflicted with manufacturing defects.

Brief Overview

The complainant purchased a Redmi Note 11 Pro + 5G smartphone priced at Rs. 20,999 from an Amazon seller. The decision was influenced by the device’s extensive storage capacity, intended for legal work and document storage. Initially, the smartphone operated smoothly, but within a month, problems emerged: unexpected call disconnections, malfunctioning vibrations, and eventually, complete signal reception failure. Seeking a resolution, the complainant approached Amazon, who redirected them to Golden Telecom, the authorized service center for Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer.

Upon visiting the service center, the complainant experienced rude behavior from its representative. Despite reinstalling the smartphone’s software twice without providing a job sheet, the service center assured the complainant that all issues would be resolved. However, the problems resurfaced shortly afterward. In subsequent visits to the service center, similar software reinstalls were carried out without issuing job sheets. The service center mentioned that further diagnostics would only proceed if issues persisted, and would be chargeable. Feeling aggrieved by this treatment, the complainant filed a consumer complaint in the Hisar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (District Commission) against Xiaomi, its service center, and the seller.

Xiaomi responded by asserting that the complainant did not visit its authorized service centers and did not furnish technical evidence of manufacturing defects. Xiaomi contended that the product initially functioned properly and accused the complainant of misleading the Commission with inaccurate information. Neither the service center nor the seller attended the District Commission proceedings.

The District Commission observed that Xiaomi’s authorized service center was clearly responsible for addressing the issues reported by the complainant. However, it noted that despite multiple visits by the complainant, the service center failed to deliver effective service. Additionally, the commission highlighted that the service center did not provide any job sheet to the complainant.

The commission concluded that the mobile phone, purchased from an Amazon seller and manufactured by Xiaomi, exhibited a manufacturing defect from the outset. Despite the complainant’s repeated complaints, Xiaomi and its service center did not take sufficient action to resolve the issues. As a result, the District Commission held Xiaomi and its service center accountable for inadequate service and unfair trade practices.

Consequently, the District Commission instructed Xiaomi and its service center to collect the faulty mobile phone from the complainant’s location at their own cost. Additionally, Xiaomi and its service center were mandated to either replace the defective device with a new one of equivalent or superior specifications or reimburse the complainant with Rs. 20,999/- plus 9% interest per annum.

Furthermore, Xiaomi and its service center were directed to jointly and severally compensate the complainant with Rs. 6,000/- each for damages and Rs. 6,000/- each for litigation expenses.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in