Xiaomi reportedly asked to pay Rs 11,000 to customer who was wrongly charged for repair during warranty period
Xiaomi is being penalized for mischarging a customer. Reportedly, a Xiaomi service centre in Bengaluru charged a user for some repairing a device that was still under warranty. A city consumer court has pulled up the service centre, and ordered it to refund the phone’s full cost to the customer, apart from litigation expenses. BGR India has reached out to Xiaomi to know more about the case.
The user, Madhusudan, bought a Xiaomi Redmi 2 on March 24, 2015, at a price of Rs 6,999 on Flipkart. On October 8, the user realized the phone’s display had gone blank, though he was able to receive calls and the handset was vibrating. That’s within seven months of the device’s purchase.
Madhusudan decided to get his device checked at TVS Electronics Ltd in Koramangala, which is an authorized Xiaomi service centre. The representatives there informed him that the screen of the device was damaged, and will be replaced at a charge of Rs 2,550, GadgetsNow reports. He agreed to the repair, and asked for the screen to be replaced.
Two days passed, and he apparently received another call from that service centre’s executive who told him that the motherboard of the device was also damaged. The executive suggested that instead of spending the money on the repair of the motherboard, he might as well purchase a new phone, which will be equivalent to the cost of fixing.
That ticked Madhusudan off and he demanded that the centre offer him service as per the warranty or a full refund for his handset. When his demands to the service centre and emails to Xiaomi yielded no response, he approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore Urban, against Xiaomi and the service centre on October 15, 2015.
His case went on for two years in the court, wherein Xiaomi insisted the damage to the phone, including problems with the motherboard, was induced by the customer and couldn’t be covered under warranty as per policy. Xiaomi’s counsel also presented documents on limited warranty (one year for hardware and six months for battery, charger and other accessories) on the company’s products.
However, in January, 2018, when the case finally reached its last lap, the consumer forum pointed out that the cellphone was under one-year warranty when the issue occurred but the Xiaomi service centre illegally collected repair charges, which is an unfair trade practice. The judges said that when the complainant is entitled to free repair/replacement of the phone, suggesting him to buy a new handset clearly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of Xiaomi.
In its final verdict, the court reportedly ordered Xiaomi and TVS Electronics Ltd to pay Rs 10,999 to Madhusudan, including a full refund for his damaged handset.
The user, Madhusudan, bought a Xiaomi Redmi 2 on March 24, 2015, at a price of Rs 6,999 on Flipkart. On October 8, the user realized the phone’s display had gone blank, though he was able to receive calls and the handset was vibrating. That’s within seven months of the device’s purchase.
Madhusudan decided to get his device checked at TVS Electronics Ltd in Koramangala, which is an authorized Xiaomi service centre. The representatives there informed him that the screen of the device was damaged, and will be replaced at a charge of Rs 2,550, GadgetsNow reports. He agreed to the repair, and asked for the screen to be replaced.
Two days passed, and he apparently received another call from that service centre’s executive who told him that the motherboard of the device was also damaged. The executive suggested that instead of spending the money on the repair of the motherboard, he might as well purchase a new phone, which will be equivalent to the cost of fixing.
That ticked Madhusudan off and he demanded that the centre offer him service as per the warranty or a full refund for his handset. When his demands to the service centre and emails to Xiaomi yielded no response, he approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore Urban, against Xiaomi and the service centre on October 15, 2015.
His case went on for two years in the court, wherein Xiaomi insisted the damage to the phone, including problems with the motherboard, was induced by the customer and couldn’t be covered under warranty as per policy. Xiaomi’s counsel also presented documents on limited warranty (one year for hardware and six months for battery, charger and other accessories) on the company’s products.
However, in January, 2018, when the case finally reached its last lap, the consumer forum pointed out that the cellphone was under one-year warranty when the issue occurred but the Xiaomi service centre illegally collected repair charges, which is an unfair trade practice. The judges said that when the complainant is entitled to free repair/replacement of the phone, suggesting him to buy a new handset clearly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of Xiaomi.
In its final verdict, the court reportedly ordered Xiaomi and TVS Electronics Ltd to pay Rs 10,999 to Madhusudan, including a full refund for his damaged handset.
A consumer court in Bengaluru has ordered cellphone maker Xiaomi to refund Rs 10,999 to a city resident for charging the person for mobile repairs even though the device was under the warranty period.
The amount includes the price of the mobile phone and the litigation expenses borne by him.
Google reported that Madhusudan, a resident of HSR Layout, bought a Xiaomi Redmi 2 costing Rs 6,999 on Flipkart in March 2015. However, seven months later, the phone's display went blank. However, he could still answer calls and the handset would still vibrate.
When Madhusudan took the phone for repair to an authorized Xiaomi service centre in Koramangala, he was told that the screen was damaged and replacing it would set him back by Rs 2,550. Madhusudan asked them to replace the screen but two days later, he received another call informing him that the motherboard also had been damaged. The executive suggested that it was better for him to buy a new phone than to repair his existing phone, as the expense would nearly be the same.
Madhusudan then demanded that the repair be done free of charge or a full refund be initiated as the device was under warranty period. As he received no response from the company, he approached the consumer court the same year. On January 4, 2018, the court ruled in his favour.
In its defence, Xiaomi said that the customer was responsible for the damage and so the device was not covered under warranty.
However, the court chided Xiaomi for charging the customer illegally even though the problem arose when the handset was under the one-year warranty period.
"When the complainant is entitled to free repair/replacement of the phone within the warranty period, asking him to buy a new handset clearly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of Xiaomi, the judges said," according to the report.
According to German market research firm Canalys, Xiaomi holds a market share of 27.4% in India's smartphone market, and shipped 8.2 million smartphones in the fourth quarter of 2017. Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 was the best-selling device of 2017, followed by Redmi 4 and Samsung Galaxy J2.
With IANS inputs
The amount includes the price of the mobile phone and the litigation expenses borne by him.
Google reported that Madhusudan, a resident of HSR Layout, bought a Xiaomi Redmi 2 costing Rs 6,999 on Flipkart in March 2015. However, seven months later, the phone's display went blank. However, he could still answer calls and the handset would still vibrate.
When Madhusudan took the phone for repair to an authorized Xiaomi service centre in Koramangala, he was told that the screen was damaged and replacing it would set him back by Rs 2,550. Madhusudan asked them to replace the screen but two days later, he received another call informing him that the motherboard also had been damaged. The executive suggested that it was better for him to buy a new phone than to repair his existing phone, as the expense would nearly be the same.
Madhusudan then demanded that the repair be done free of charge or a full refund be initiated as the device was under warranty period. As he received no response from the company, he approached the consumer court the same year. On January 4, 2018, the court ruled in his favour.
In its defence, Xiaomi said that the customer was responsible for the damage and so the device was not covered under warranty.
However, the court chided Xiaomi for charging the customer illegally even though the problem arose when the handset was under the one-year warranty period.
"When the complainant is entitled to free repair/replacement of the phone within the warranty period, asking him to buy a new handset clearly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of Xiaomi, the judges said," according to the report.
According to German market research firm Canalys, Xiaomi holds a market share of 27.4% in India's smartphone market, and shipped 8.2 million smartphones in the fourth quarter of 2017. Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 was the best-selling device of 2017, followed by Redmi 4 and Samsung Galaxy J2.
With IANS inputs
No comments
Post a Comment