Repair TV Without Any Cost: Chandigarh District Commission Holds Xiaomi India Liable For Unfair Trade Practice

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh – I consisting of Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) allowed the complaint filed against Xiaomi India as despite payment for repairs to Xiaomi, the TV remained inoperable. The Commission held Xiaomi liable for unfair trade practices and ordered it to repair the TV within 45 days, without any additional charges. It also directed it to pay Rs. 5000 as compensation for the mental agony and Rs. 5000 as litigation cost. Brief Facts: The Complainant purchased a TV that unexpectedly shut down. He contacted Xiaomi's customer helpline, and after a few days, a company technician visited and replaced the TV's faulty power supply. The Complainant was informed that due to the expired warranty and the lack of a repair policy, he would have to pay for the replacement part. Consequently, the Complainant paid Rs. 3301.64/- for the replacement. However, the TV malfunctioned again. The technician from Xiaomi once again changed the same part, but the TV shut down on the same day. The same was repeated and the TV has remained non-functional till now. Subsequently, Xiaomi's technician suggested that there might be a problem with the TV's motherboard and proposed replacing it to confirm the diagnosis. However, they required an upfront payment of Rs. 11,000/- for the new motherboard. The Complainant hesitated, pointing out the high cost of the replacement, especially given the uncertainty about the actual problem. Xiaomi refused the Complainant's request for a repair service instead of an expensive replacement. The TV still remains inoperable, and the Complainant argued that Xiaomi is intentionally pushing them to buy a new TV through an exchange offer. The Complainant alleged that Xiaomi has not provided satisfactory service, due to which he filed the consumer complaint. Contentions of Xiaomi India: Xiaomi India contested the consumer complaint and argued that the complainant has not presented any substantial evidence to prove that the TV’s alleged defects are due to a manufacturing issue. It asserted that the product does not have any manufacturing defects, as evidenced by its trouble-free use over an extended period. It further claimed that the complainant's motive behind initiating this complaint is to harass Xiaomi. Moreover, it explained that the repair charges are based on the product's warranty terms, which specify a one-year warranty from the purchase date. As almost two years have passed since the purchase, the complainant cannot demand free repair services. It, thus, contended that the complainant lacks merit and the complaint should be dismissed. Observations of the Commission: The Chandigarh District Commission allowed the complaint and observed that the complainant had paid Rs. 3301.64 for "out-of-warranty repairs" conducted by Xiaomi on the TV. Further, evidence indicated that only 10 days after the repairs, the TV began experiencing issues again, and the company requested an additional Rs. 11,000 to replace the motherboard. The Commission pointed out that when repairs are carried out on a payment basis, it is reasonable to expect the repaired item to function properly for at least six months. Due to the TV's failure within 10 days of the repairs, Xiaomi was found to have inadequately fixed the TV to the Commission's satisfaction. The Commission held that Xiaomi India’s demand for Rs. 10,000 within such a short time frame after the repair amounts to unfair trade practice. In conclusion, the Commission ordered Xiaomi India to repair the complainant's TV within 45 days, without imposing any additional charges. Furthermore, Xiaomi was instructed to pay Rs. 5000 as compensation for the mental distress caused to the complainant, along with an additional Rs. 5000 as reimbursement for litigation expenses. It directed that the order be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of its official copy; failure to do so would result in Xiaomi being obligated to pay the specified amounts along with 12% annual interest starting from the date of the order. Case Title: Himanshu Sharma vs. Xiaomi India Counsel for Complainant: Ajay Sharma, Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party: Atul Goyal, Advocate Click Here To Read/Download Order

Repair TV Without Any Cost: Chandigarh District Commission Holds Xiaomi India Liable For Unfair Trade Practice

Sachika Vij

Tags