Failure To Resolve Manufacturing Defects Within Warranty Period, Hamirpur District Commission Holds Xiaomi India Liable

Brief Facts:

The Complainant purchased a Redmi Note 10 Pro Max mobile phone from the A.S. Infotek shop for Rs. 21,990/-. According to the warranty terms, the hardware was covered for one year, and accessories such as the battery and charger for six months. In March 2022, the mobile phone abruptly malfunctioned due to a technical issue. The Complainant approached the shop to either replace or repair the phone at its service centre, as per the warranty but was refused a replacement. Instead, the phone was taken by the shop and sent to a service centre in Chandigarh, which repaired it under a service type denoted as 'OOWCID' for a fault described as "does not boot," resulting in a bill amounting to Rs. 13,131.04/-. The service centre attributed the fault to the customer. Despite the service, the shop has neither returned the repaired phone nor provided a replacement. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against the Shop and Xiaomi.

Upon receiving notice, the Shop denied failing to return or replace the phone, emphasizing the service centre's determination that the damage, specifically to the main board antenna connector, was not covered under warranty due to external damage, including scratches. It contended that the Complainant's actions caused the damage and contended that the service centre's decision was final. Xiaomi didn't appear before the District Commission for proceedings.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted the terms of the limited warranty provided by Xiaomi, which covered hardware defects for one year and accessories for six months from the date of purchase. It observed that the Complainant purchased the Redmi Note 10 Pro Max for Rs. 21,990 on September 4, 2021, and within six months of the purchase, the mobile phone ceased to function due to a defect related to booting.

The District Commission held that despite the phone malfunctioning well within the warranty period, Xiaomi failed to replace the defective mobile phone as required under the warranty terms. The mobile phone remained in the custody of Xiaomi, and it insisted on repair charges amounting to Rs.13,131.04/- from the Complainant, which the Complainant contested citing warranty coverage.

The District Commission held that a manufacturing defect was present in the mobile phone, which caused it to malfunction within the warranty period. As a result, it held that Xiaomi was liable for deficiency in service for not replacing the mobile phone despite the clear entitlement under the warranty provisions.

Furthermore, considering the financial implications and inconvenience caused to the Complainant, the District Commission directed Xiaomi to refund the full purchase amount of Rs. 21,990/- along with an interest rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint. Additionally, Xiaomi was directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant, along with litigation costs totalling Rs.7,500/-. The complaint against the shop was dismissed.

Case Title: Sahil Sankhyan vs Manager Customer Care, XIAOMI Technology India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case Number: 89/2022

Date of Pronouncement: 17.05.2024