In a recent judgment, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Central Mumbai, sided with Akash Rameshkumar Gupta, who alleged negligence and deficiency in service by Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd after experiencing repeated issues with his smartphone. The complaint, documented under Complaint No. DCDRC/CM/CC/23/504, was presided over by President Smt. Vandana Mishra and Member Shri. Sanjay S. Jagdale, who ordered partial relief to the complainant. This verdict highlights consumer rights concerning manufacturer accountability, even post-warranty, when devices exhibit persistent defects linked to software or hardware quality.
Background of the Case
The case stems from Gupta’s purchase of a Xiaomi mobile handset on October 4, 2020, for ₹18,500. Following the expiration of the warranty, Gupta discovered a manufacturing defect which reportedly worsened after he updated the phone’s MIUI software, a feature rolled out by Xiaomi itself. Despite numerous attempts to get the handset repaired by Xiaomi’s technicians, and payment of a repair fee of ₹10,500, the problem remained unresolved. Frustrated by the lack of effective service, Gupta filed a legal notice, to which Xiaomi provided no response, ultimately leading him to lodge a formal complaint with the Consumer Court on July 21, 2023.
Legal Issues and Court Observations
The court examined several key issues in this case:
1. Determining Consumer Status and Service Deficiency
The court first established Gupta’s status as a legitimate consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, noting that he had met the prerequisites of payment and engagement with the service provider. The judges observed, “The complainant has provided substantial evidence proving his standing as a consumer and the unchallenged documentation supports claims of service deficiency.”
2. Negligence and Unfair Trade Practices
The court scrutinized Xiaomi’s approach, specifically its failure to address recurring issues in Gupta’s phone model, despite similar issues reportedly being acknowledged in other Xiaomi models. The court remarked, “The opponent’s unwillingness to engage constructively despite repeated consumer grievances demonstrates an unacceptable deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, contravening consumer protection laws.”
3. Right to Compensation for Mental Agony and Harassment
Emphasizing consumer protection rights, the court acknowledged the distress Gupta faced due to Xiaomi’s negligence, including financial losses and mental agony. It observed, “Repeated follow-ups without satisfactory resolution have evidently caused harassment to the complainant, warranting compensation.”
Court Decision and Orders
After careful review, the court issued the following directives:
– Refund of Purchase Amount: Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd is required to refund ₹18,500, with a 15% depreciation deduction per year for two years, to account for the phone’s diminished value over time.
– Compensation for Mental Agony: Xiaomi must also pay ₹10,000 to Gupta as compensation for the distress caused by the inadequate service and failure to address his grievances adequately.
– Litigation Costs: An additional ₹5,000 was awarded to Gupta to cover the legal expenses incurred throughout the dispute resolution process.
The court summarized its stance, stating, “Unfair trade practices and service negligence cause undue hardship to consumers, and companies must bear responsibility for such deficiencies.”
