A Bandra Consumer Redressal Commission called out electronics company Xiaomi for selling “shoddy” products to customers and further not taking any steps to rectify faults.
The Commission has directed the company and its authorised service centre to give a brand new contemporary mobile handset to the customer and also pay compensation and costs of Rs 10,000 to him.
If the respondents do not give the new mobile phone, the model of which the Commission has specified in its order, it has directed them to pay back the Rs 6,999 to the Andheri resident had paid in September 2015 for the handset.
Hiranna Fulari had started experiencing heating and battery issues with his Redmi 2 Prime mobile within a month of its online purchase from the company. He had taken it to the service centre, where they asked him to leave it for two days. Even though he gave them four days’ time, they told him to come after another seven days, the complaint said.
Fulari made two more trips to the service centre, but they told him that they needed more time to resolve the issue. Finally, he could collect his handset only after two-and-half months from the service centre.
His ordeal did not end there too. The problems continued even after the product was brought back after service. As a result, it had to be left at the service centre again, he said in his complaint.
Fulari had approached the consumer commission stating that he had been sold a faulty handset which needed such elaborate repairs within a short span of time after purchase and sought that he be given a new handset of contemporary model or be refunded the amount he paid for the mobile.
He filed before the commission the email exchanges, complaint letters, replies to these and a service job sheet.
The Commission noted that despite receiving notice, both the service centre and the company “deliberately failed” and “neglected” to appear before it and put forth their defence.
President Shubhada D Tulankar in her judgment observed that in less than a month, the handset started giving problems, which the opposite parties (service centre and company) took two-and-half months to rectify the problem, proves that there were some inherent faults with the handset.
