Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited v. Ravinder Kumar

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Dec 21, 2020

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The complainant, Ravinder Kumar, purchased a Redmi Note-5 Pro mobile handset for Rs. 11,267 on 15.10.2018. The handset carried a one-year warranty. Within the warranty period the complainant experienced heating problems while charging, which allegedly caused the handset to become slightly bent. The complainant approached the service centre (M/s Sant Rameshwari Enterprises) multiple times (noted visits in January 2019, March 2019 and July 2019) for inspection and repair. Service records and invoices (referred to as Annexures C-1 to C-4 and Annexure A-3) record visits, inspection remarks (including “display bend”, “6mm dent on screen”, “TP not working”, and “tp and battery cover bend”) and differing notations as to whether the handset was in-warranty or out-of-warranty; the service centre at times demanded payment for repairs.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I (now District Commission), UT, Chandigarh, partly allowed Consumer Complaint No. 222 of 2019 by order dated 10.12.2019, directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to:

(i) refund Rs. 11,267 to the complainant; (ii) pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and for mental agony & harassment; (iii) pay Rs. 7,000 as costs of litigation. The amounts at (i) & (ii) to carry interest @ 12% per annum if not paid within 30 days. The complainant to return the handset after compliance.

Opposite Party No.2, Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, filed the present appeal against the Forum's order. The appeal was heard by a bench consisting of Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Padma Pandey (Member). Counsel for the appellant and respondent appeared; respondent No.2 proceeded ex parte and none appeared for respondent No.3.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether there was a manufacturing defect in the mobile handset purchased by the complainant.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Opposite Party No.2 — Xiaomi)

The Forum failed to apply its mind and wrongly treated the handset as defective; the product was delivered in perfect condition and was damaged by the complainant.
The parties had allegedly reached a settlement that the handset would be repaired free of cost and the complainant would withdraw the complaint, but the complainant refused to withdraw after repair.
The complainant did not furnish any technical evidence to establish a manufacturing defect.
The appellant relied upon a Customer Satisfaction Letter and an affidavit of its Authorized Representative (Mr. Sameer B.S. Rao) to support its position.

Respondent's Arguments (Complainant — Ravinder Kumar)

The handset suffered a manufacturing defect (heating problem leading to bending) and the Forum rightly allowed the complaint.
Service centre documents, photographs (Annexure A-3) and service records show repeated defects and inspections during the warranty period.
The complainant explained that he signed documents under compulsion to obtain his handset; the Customer Satisfaction Letter was not voluntary.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the documentary evidence and recordings of service interactions and followed a fact-driven analysis:

Documentary proof of purchase and warranty: Annexure C-1 (invoice dated 15.10.2018) established the date of purchase and that the handset carried a one-year warranty. The court found it admitted that the handset was within the warranty period when defects were reported.
Repeated complaints and service records: The complainant approached the service centre multiple times — initially in January 2019 (heating at time of charging; minor adjustment carried out), again in March 2019 (heating problem leading to a slight bend), and again in July 2019 — as shown by Annexures C-2, C-3 and C-4 and photographs in Annexure A-3. These records showed inspection remarks such as “display bend”, “6mm dent on screen”, “TP not working”, and “tp and battery cover bend”.
Conflicting warranty status in records: The service documentation was inconsistent as to warranty status — some records noted “Out of Warranty” and others “In Warranty” — which the court treated as evidence of confusion on the part of the service centre/company about warranty entitlement.
Causal connection to defect: The court accepted that the handset bent as a consequence of the heating problem rather than as a result of accidental external damage. The coloured photographs (Annexure A-3) were relied upon in support of this inference.
Burden and quality of evidence: The court noted that the appellant failed to produce technical evidence or a technical report to rebut the complainant's case that the defect was manufacturing-related. The appellant’s assertions without corroboration were characterized as bald and not credible at face value. The affidavit of the Authorized Representative was deemed self-serving and insufficient.
Conduct of the service centre/manufacturer: The court emphasised that the service centre/Company failed to repair the handset under warranty and unlawfully demanded payment. The Forum had inferred that such demands were attempts to avoid warranty liability.
Consumer protection rationale: The court highlighted the expectation that a reputed manufacturer like Xiaomi should satisfy customers during warranty period by repairing or, where appropriate, replacing or refunding for major defects. In the present facts, the manufacturer and service providers did not honor warranty commitments.
Conclusion from evidence: Based on the sequence and content of the documents, the repeated in-warranty complaints, the inconsistent records of warranty status, the photographic evidence, and the absence of technical rebuttal by the appellant, the court concluded that there was a manufacturing defect in the handset and that the Forum’s findings were correct.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal filed by Opposite Party No.2 (Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited) is dismissed and the order of the Forum (now District Commission) dated 10.12.2019 is upheld.

Implications / Direct effects:

The directions of the Forum—refund of Rs. 11,267, payment of Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 7,000 as litigation costs—stand. The Forum had required compliance within 30 days, failing which amounts at Sr. Nos. (i) and (ii) would carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of the Forum’s order until realization. The complainant was to return the handset after compliance.
The appeal was dismissed "with no order as to costs" (i.e., each party bears its own costs as the court recorded).
The court treated the Forum’s order as based on a correct appreciation of evidence and law and found no illegality or perversity in it; the opinion does not purport to lay down any new precedent or novel legal principle beyond applying consumer-protection reasoning to the recorded facts.

Certified copies of the appellate order were directed to be provided to the parties/their counsel free of charge. The order was pronounced on 21.12.2020 by the bench (Raj Shekhar Attri, President; Padma Pandey, Member).

Show all summary ...

Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited having its Office at Building Orchid, Block E, Embassy Tech Village, Marathahalli Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Devarabisanahalli, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560103. Email xin-legal@xiaomi.com. ..Appellant /Opposite Party No.2. Versus Ravinder Kumar S/o Sh. Trilok Chand, r/o House No.2005/26, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh 160032, Email : .ravinderkumar20665@gmail.com . Respondent No.1/complainant. M/s Sant Rameshwari Enterprises through its Proprietor SCO 12, 1 Floor, Sector 27,st Chandigarh 160019, Email :santramesh-ch-cha-0328@3st.net. M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. Building Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech Village, Bengaluru 560103, Karnataka, India, Email : .reply@flipkart.com Respondents No.2 & 3 /Opposite Parties No.3 & 1. BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT. MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER. :Argued by Sh. Atul Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 exparte vide order dated 17.06.2020. None for respondent No.3. PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.12.2019, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I (now District Commission), UT, Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), vide which, it partly allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.222 of 2019 against the Opposite Parties, which reads as under :-

18. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed against Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under :-

(i) To refund to the price of the mobile handset amounting to Rs.11,267/- to the Complainant;

(ii) To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and for mental agony & harassment;

(iii) To pay to the complainant Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr. No. (i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above. The Complainant shall return the mobile handset in question to Opposite Parties after the compliance of the order. In view of the present Consumer Complaint being partly allowed, the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.

2. In the complaint case before the Forum (now District Commission), only dispute was that the complainant purchased Redmi Note-5 Pro mobile handset for the sum of Rs.11,267/- on 15.10.2018. After few months, the said handset was having heating problem, due to which, it got bent and the said fact was reported to Opposite Party No.3 but it offered to repair the handset on payment basis, as the said handset was within warranty period.

3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Forum (now District Commission), the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

4. We have heard Counsel for the contesting parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

5. Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 has submitted that the Forum while passing the impugned order failed to apply its mind that the product was delivered to the complainant in perfect condition and the same was damaged at the hands of respondent No.1/complainant, as such, it cannot be termed as defective product. He further submitted that the parties arrived at the settlement with terms that the handset in question will be repaired for free of cost and the complainant would be withdrawing the complaint case before the Forum but after repair of the handset free of cost, the complainant refused to withdraw the complaint case. He has further submitted that the complainant has not furnished any technical evidence to establish that the product is having a manufacturing defect. He prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.

6. Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant has denied the allegations levelled by the appellant and submitted that the mobile handset is having manufacturing defect, as such, the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by Opposite Party No.2 Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited.

7. After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

8. The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether there is manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. The answer, to this, question is in the affirmative. Annexure C-1 is a copy of invoice dated 15.10.2018. From this document, it is proved that the complainant purchased mobile handset in the sum of Rs.11,267/-. It is the admitted fact that the said mobile handset carried one year warranty. After purchase of the handset, the complainant faced lot of problems during the warranty period, as in January, 2019, due to heating problem at the time of charging, the complainant approached respondent No.2 i.e. M/s Sant Rameshwari Enterprises and after minor adjustment, the same was returned to the complainant. The complainant again approached respondent No.2 in March, 2019 i.e. during warranty period because he faced the same heating problem, due to which, the mobile handset was slightly bent. The said fact is proved from Annexure A-3 i.e. coloured photographs attached with the appeal as well as before the Forum also. Annexure C-2 is a copy of tax invoice dated 15.03.2019. From this document, it is proved that the said handset was given to respondent No.2 for inspection, for which, respondent No.2 charged an amount of Rs.118/-. Annexure C-3 is a copy of service record. From this document, it is proved that the mobile handset was having problem because in the column Inspection Remarks, it is mentioned that display bend and 6mm dent on screen and in the column Service Type, it is mentioned as Out of Warranty, for which, they demanded a sum of Rs.4364.82. The complainant in his written arguments has clearly mentioned that on the application of the appellant, the handset was produced before the Forum, where, it was found that the same was not damaged and handset was bent due to heating problem. The complainant has also attached copy of Service Record dated 26.04.2019 (at page No.32 of the Forum file). In the said document, it has been mentioned in the column Service Type In Warranty and in the Inspection Remarks, it has been mentioned as TP not working. Further, the complainant again visited the service center of the Company on 13.07.2019 (Annexure C-4), in which, it has been mentioned in the column Inspection Remarks, tp and battery cover bend and in the column

Service Type, it is mentioned as OOW means Out of Warranty and demanded charges of Rs.5543.64. From the aforesaid documents, it is clearly proved that during the warranty period, the complainant approached the service center of the Company time and again due to heating problem in the mobile handset and other problems also, for which, it demanded some charges. It is also pertinent to note that the service center/Company was confused about the warranty of the mobile handset because in documents Annexures C-3 & C-4, it has been mentioned as out of warranty and the document attached at page No.32, it has been mentioned as In warranty. It is the admitted fact that the complainant purchased the said handset on 15.10.2018 and due to some heating problem, he approached the service center in January, 2019 i.e. after about two months. The complainant has also placed on record Annexure C-3 i.e. service record which shows that he approached the service center on 15.03.2019 i.e. after about four months of its purchase. So, it is clear that the product was well within the warranty period. The other allegations of the appellant is that the said mobile handset was damaged at the hands of the complainant has no value at all because the same could not bend after slipping from the hands, rather the same was bent due to heating problem in the mobile handset as is shown in the coloured photograph (Annexure A-3) annexed with the appeal. The other plea of the appellant is regarding Customer Satisfaction Letter is concerned, it is, no doubt, true that the same was signed by the complainant but the complainant in his rejoinder has clearly stated that Opposite Party repaired the handset and without signatures on their documents are not ready to return the handset. Thus under compelled circumstnaces The another plea taken by the appellant that complainant hascomplainant signed the document.

not furnished any technical evidence to establish that the product is having a manufacturing defect is concerned, it is proved from the record that the said mobile handset was faulty and due to heating problem, it was bent. However, the service center of the company failed to repair the same under warranty and unlawfully demanded the amount, as such, the Forum has rightly said that they demanded the amount just to save their skin, levelled the allegation of physical damage. Even Opposite Party No.2 failed to place on record any evidence or any technical report to prove that the said mobile handset was not having manufacturing defect. So, the Forum while passing the impugned order rightly said that In the absence of which the assertions made by the Opposite Party No.2 are bald and thus, cannot be believed at its face value. Importantly, the self-serving affidavit of the Authorized Representative Mr. Sameer B.S. Rao of the Opposite Party No.2 is not sufficient to prove the said fact. The sequence of above leads to irresistible conclusion that Thethere was manufacturing defect in the mobile handset purchased by the Complainant. complainant had purchased the mobile handset to make his life easy but he could not enjoy the use thereof, as defect arose therein during the warranty period. On the other hand, salt was added to their miseries when despite the fact that defects in the said mobile handset occurred during the warranty period neither the dealer nor the service center nor the manufacturer came forward to redress their grievance and on the other hand, they tried to manipulate the situation on vague ground and failed to honour the warranty commitments. Even nowadays Xiaomi is renowned name in the mobile market, so it is its duty to satisfy their customers and if any of the problems occurred in the handset, especially in the warranty period, they immediately repair/rectify the same without charging anything and if some major defects occurred, it is duty of the Company to immediately change the handset or refund the amount to their customers but in the present case, it was not so done. So, the appellant failed to prove their case. Therefore, we are of the view that the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum (now District Commission), being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Hence, the appeal filed by Opposite Party No.2, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum (now District Commission) is upheld.

10. Certified copies of order be given to the parties/their Counsel free of charge. Pronounced. 21.12.2020 Sd/- [RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT Sd/- (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER