Malfunctioning Of Phone Within 1 Year Of Purchase, Hyderabad District Commission Holds Realme Liable For Deficiency In Service

Brief Facts:

Ms. Manu Priya's (Complainant) brother purchased a "Realme GT Master Edition" mobile phone. The actual cost of the phone was Rs. 25,999/-, but Luminary Lifestyle Pvt Ltd (“Seller”) advised the Complainant's brother to pay Rs. 10,499/- upfront and the remaining Rs. 7,750/- after one year. The phone was delivered to his brother, and the Complainant received it as a gift. However, within one year, the phone started malfunctioning. The Complainant made several efforts to resolve the issue with the Realme service centre. However, no resolution was provided. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Realme, its service centre and the seller.

In response, Realme and its service centre denied the allegations, contending that the Complainant's vexatious complaint was based on issues that arose six months after the purchase. It claimed to have addressed battery backup, hanging, and display issues through technical interventions. The service centre asserted that the Complainant's demand to replace the motherboard was denied due to Flipkart EMI policy lock popup messages, and by December 3, 2022, the device was out of warranty.

The seller, in its written version, denied the Complainant's allegations, asserting that it was a registered seller on "Flipkart.com" and had no role in providing after-sale services. It claimed that the Complainant failed to establish a cause of action against it, emphasizing that warranty issues fall under the responsibility of the manufacturer and authorized service centre.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that the Complainant experienced malfunctioning issues within one year of purchasing the "Realme GT Master Edition" mobile phone. The Complainant's visits to the service centre with the malfunctioning device caused significant inconvenience. It held that although Realme was a reputable brand, the consistent malfunctioning issues leading to disappointment were deemed a valid concern on the part of the Complainant.

The District Commission held that Realme, being the manufacturer, bears the primary responsibility for ensuring the good quality of the product. While the seller, has the primary duty to provide accurate information about the product during the purchasing process, the District Commission held that there were no allegations of misrepresentation against it. It held that the service centre's role was limited to providing services related to product defects and malfunctions, and as such, it was not responsible for the defects. Consequently, the District Commission held Realme liable for deficiency in services.

Consequently, the District Commission directed Realme to refund an amount of Rs. 10,499/- to the Complainant. Realme was also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by her.