Bangalore District Commission Holds Xiaomi And Amazon Liable For Defective Redmi Note 8 With Manufacturing Defects
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban bench of Shivarama K (President), Rekha Sayannavar (Member) and Chandrashekhar S Noola (Member) held Xiaomi and Amazon liable for deficiency in services for selling a phone with a manufacturing defect to the Complainant. Brief Facts: The Complainant purchased Redmi Note 8 from Amazon through an...
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban bench of Shivarama K (President), Rekha Sayannavar (Member) and Chandrashekhar S Noola (Member) held Xiaomi and Amazon liable for deficiency in services for selling a phone with a manufacturing defect to the Complainant.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant purchased Redmi Note 8 from Amazon through an online transaction totalling Rs. 10,499/-. According to the Complainant, numerous issues such as battery overheating, frequent hanging, and speaker malfunction became apparent, which were communicated to Amazon through multiple calls. Amazon directed the Complainant to approach Xiaomi Technology India (“Xiaomi”).
Due to the COVID-19 lockdown, the Complainant was prevented from submitting the phone for warranty repairs. Subsequently, after the lockdown lifted, the Complainant delivered the phone to Xiaomi's service centre for repairs. Despite servicing, the issues persisted which led the Complainant to return the phone for a third time. At this point, the service centre claimed that water damage, not covered by warranty, was the cause and demanded Rs. 7,000- for repairs. In response, the Complainant issued a legal notice which was served to Amazon. Amazon responded vaguely. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban, Karnataka (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Xiaomi and Amazon.
In its defence, Amazon contended complaint was not valid against it as it is an e-commerce marketplace and not the direct seller of the mobile phone. It argued that the Complainant purchased the phone from a third-party seller listed on its platform. It insisted that all responsibilities regarding product quality, safety, and warranty lie with the third-party seller, and any issues related to manufacturing defects should be addressed to Xiaomi.
Xiaomi didn't appear before the District Commission for proceedings.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission found merit in the Complainant's claim that the mobile phone purchased through Amazon exhibited defects within the warranty period, despite efforts by the authorized service centre to rectify them. The District Commission held that these persistent issues substantiated a manufacturing defect, for which both Xiaomi and Amazon were jointly and severally liable.
Therefore, the District Commission directed Xiaomi and Amazon to collectively pay the Complainant a total sum of Rs. 10,499/- along with 9% interest per annum. The District Commission also directed them to pay an additional Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses and compensation to the Complainant.
Case Title: Sri. P.N. Raghavendra Rao vs Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Case Number: 326/2021