Hisar District Commission Holds Xiaomi India, Its Authorized Service Centre Liable For Failure To Rectify Phone's Manufacturing Defects

Brief Facts:

The Complainant purchased a Redmi Note 11 Pro + 5G smartphone from a seller on Amazon for Rs. 20,999/-. The Complainant opted for this model due to its high storage capacity, intending to use it for legal work and document storage. Initially, the smartphone functioned properly, but after one month, issues arose: calls disconnected unexpectedly, vibration malfunctioned, and the device stopped receiving signals altogether. Seeking resolution, the Complainant contacted Amazon, who directed him to Golden Telecom, the authorized service centre of Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, the manufacturer.

Upon visiting the service centre, the Complainant encountered rude behaviour from its representative. Despite reinstalling the smartphone's software twice without issuing a job sheet, the service centre assured the Complainant that all issues would be resolved. However, problems recurred shortly thereafter. On subsequent visits to the service centre, similar software reinstalls were performed without issuing job sheets. The service centre indicated that further diagnostics would only occur if issues persisted and on a chargeable basis. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar, Haryana (“District Commission”) against Xiaomi, its service centre and the seller.

In response, Xiaomi argued that the Complainant didn't approach its authorized service centres and failed to provide technical evidence of manufacturing defects. It claimed that the product worked fine initially and accused the Complainant of misleading the Commission with false information. The service centre and the seller didn't appear before the District Commission for proceedings.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that the authorized service centre of Xiaomi had a clear obligation to rectify the issues reported by the Complainant. However, it noted that the service centre failed to provide effective service despite multiple visits by the Complainant. It noted that the service centre didn't even issue any job sheet to the Complainant.

It held that the mobile phone purchased from Amazon's seller and manufactured by Xiaomi had a manufacturing defect from the outset. Despite repeated complaints, Xiaomi and its service centre did not take adequate action to resolve the issues. Consequently, the District Commission held Xiaomi and its service centre liable for deficient service and unfair trade practices.

Therefore, the District Commission directed Xiaomi and its service centre to retrieve the defective mobile phone from the Complainant's premises at their own expense. Furthermore, Xiaomi and its service centre were ordered to either replace the defective device with a new one of the same or higher specification or refund the Complainant the sum of Rs. 20,999/- along with interest at 9% per annum.

Additionally, Xiaomi and its service centre were directed to pay Rs. 6,000/- each as compensation and Rs. 6,000/- each as litigation expenses to the Complainant jointly and severally.

Case Title: Sumit Pannu vs Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited and Ors.

Case Number: CC/664/2022

Date of Decision: 21.05.2024