Sale Of Defective Earphones And Failure To Issue Refund, Hyderabad District Commission Holds Xiaomi India Liable For Deficiency In Service

Brief Facts:

Mr Anirudh Rathi (“Complainant”), after watching an advertisement, placed an online order for Mi True Wireless Earphones 2C-28814, paying an amount of Rs. 2,399/-. The product was delivered to the Complainant a few days later. However, while charging the earphones, the Complainant observed that one of the earphones in the set was not charging. Subsequently, the Complainant approached Xiaomi, and after multiple visits, the Complainant got to know that there was a manufacturing defect in the earphones. The Complainant raised a complaint with Xiaomi. After no communication or reply to the Complaint for 10 days, the Complainant was informed by the Xiaomi service centre, that the Xiaomi earphones could be replaced with Redmi Buds 3 Lite-black colour. When the Complainant refused to accept the offer made by the service centre, it told him that this was the only available option. Later, he came to know that there were around 50 units of the Mi True Wireless Earphones 2C-28814 which were found to have manufacturing defects. Even after sending legal notices and emails, the Complainant didn't receive a satisfactory reply and faced uncooperative behaviour from the service centre. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad (“District Commission”).

Xiaomi's service centre and the Manger failed to appear for the proceedings and was proceeded against ex-parte. Whereas, Xioami, through its director, contended that its authorized service center took earphones for repair upon receiving the Complaint. According to the established principle, it argued replacement occurs only if the product is irreparable. It asserted that, as per warranty terms, it provided a replacement, honouring its obligations. It refuted claims of deficiency of service and unfair trade practices made by the Complainant, urging the District Commission to dismiss the complaint.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission noted that after the reporting of the manufacturing defect by the Complainant to Xiaomi, it offered to replace the product with an inferior quality earphone. Further, the District Commission noted that Xiaomi did not present any evidence demonstrating that the provision of warranty T&C were in the knowledge of the Complainant. Consequently, the District Commission held Xiaomi liable for sending a defective product and subsequently not refunding the amount. Therefore, the District Commission ruled in favour of the Complainant and held Xiaomi liable for deficiency in service.

The District Commission directed Xiaomi to refund an amount of Rs. 2,399/- for the amount charged from the Complainant for the defective product. Additionally, it also directed it to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and distress caused to the Complainant and pay Rs. 5,000/- towards the litigation costs incurred by him.

Case Title: Anirudh Rathi vs Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd and others.

Case No.: C.C. No. 227/2023

Advocate for the Complainant: B. Shanker

Advocate for the Respondent: P. Venkanna Goud

Click Here To Read/Download The Order