Chandigarh DCDRC holds Xiaomi India liable for unfair trade practice

Chandigarh DCDRC holds Xiaomi India liable for unfair trade practice

Directs the company to pay the complainant Rs.10,000 as compensation for causing mental agony and litigation costs

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh–I has allowed the complaint filed by an individual against Xiaomi India, as despite paying for the repairs to the company, his TV set remained non-functional.

The Commission comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (member) held Xiaomi liable for unfair trade practices and ordered it to repair the TV within 45 days, without any additional charges. It also directed the company to pay the complainant Rs.5000 as compensation for causing mental agony and Rs.5000 as litigation costs.

The complainant had purchased a TV set, which unexpectedly shut down. Thereafter, he contacted Xiaomi's customer care helpline.

A few days later, a company technician visited and replaced the TV's faulty power supply system. 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.

The complainant paid Rs.3301.64, but again the TV malfunctioned. Once again, the technician changed the same component. However, on the very same day, it conked out. The process was repeated yet again, and still, the TV remained non-functional.

Xiaomi's technician subsequently suggested to the complainant that there might be a problem with the TV's motherboard and proposed replacing it to confirm the diagnosis. However, he sought 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. He argued that Xiaomi was intentionally pushing him to buy a new TV through an exchange offer. He alleged that the company did not provide satisfactory service, due to which he had to approach the consumer forum.

Xiaomi argued that the complainant did not present any substantial evidence to prove that the TV’s alleged defects were due to a manufacturing issue. It asserted that the product did not have any manufacturing defects, as evidenced by its trouble-free use over an extended period. It claimed that the complainant's motive behind the complaint was to harass Xiaomi.

The company informed that the repair charges were based on the product's one-year warranty terms from the purchase date. Since almost two years had passed, the complainant could not demand free repair services. Contending that the complaint lacked merit, it requested its dismissal.

However, the DCRDC allowed the complaint and observed that the complainant paid Rs.3301.64 for ‘out-of-warranty repairs’ conducted by Xiaomi. Also, evidence indicated that only 10 days after the repairs, the TV experienced issues again. That’s when the company requested an additional Rs.11,000 to replace the motherboard.

The Commission pointed out that when repairs were carried out on a payment basis, it was reasonable to expect the item to function properly for at least six months. Due to the TV's failure within 10 days of repairs, Xiaomi was found to have inadequately fixed it. The Commission held that the company’s demand for Rs.10,000 within a short span after the repair amounted to unfair trade practice.

Thus, it ordered Xiaomi to repair the complainant's TV within 45 days, without imposing any additional charges. It was further 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, within 45 days. Failure to do so would result in Xiaomi being obligated to pay the specified amount along with 12 percent annual interest.