Phone With Defective Motherboard Replaced With Refurbished Model During Service, Bangalore District Commission Holds POCO Liable

Brief Facts:

Mrs. Divyashree P.R. (“Complainant”) purchased a POCO X3 Pro, 8GB + 128GB mobile phone for Rs. 20,999/-. On July 25, 2023, she encountered a significant issue with the phone, rendering it completely dead and unresponsive, despite being within the warranty period. Seeking assistance, the Complainant contacted POCO. Initially, she was informed that the problem was associated with the motherboard, and she was assured a replacement with a new motherboard. Eagerly awaiting the return of her phone, after 20-30 days, she received notification from POCO that the motherboard was unavailable. Instead of replacing the motherboard, POCO opted to replace the entire handset with a new one of the same model. However, upon receiving the replacement handset on August 21, 2023, the Complainant was disappointed to discover that it was not new but rather a refurbished phone. Consequently, on August 26, 2023, the Complainant requested POCO to fulfil their promise of providing a new phone, but there was no response. Subsequently, on September 21, 2023, the Complainant issued a legal notice to POCO. Despite the service of the notice, it neither complied with it nor responded.

Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against POCO. POCO didn't appear before the District Commission for the proceedings. Therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission held that the mobile handset purchased from POCO by the Complainant exhibited issues with the motherboard. Despite POCO's initial commitment to replace the motherboard, it later conveyed its unavailability and assured that it would replace it with a new phone. However, the phone provided to the Complainant was found to be refurbished. In light of these facts, the District Commission held that POCO not only committed a deficiency in service but also engaged in unfair trade practices and breached the trust of the complainant.

Consequently, the District Commission directed POCO to refund the Complainant the sum of Rs. 20,999/-, representing the value of the mobile phone, to the Complainant with an interest rate of 10% per annum within two months from the date of this order. Furthermore, the POCO was directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 3,000/- for the deficiency in service experienced by the Complainant, along with the litigation costs of Rs. 3,000/-.