Not repairing mobile within warranty costs firm dear

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, April 20

Not repairing a mobile handset within the warranty period is deficiency of service. Stating this, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, has directed a company to not only refund the entire cost of the mobile phone to a consumer, but also pay Rs10,000 as compensation for causing mental agony and litigation cost.

Hunar Sehgal, a resident of Sector 61, Chandigarh, approached the commission after the company failed to rectify the defects of the mobile handset. Sehgal said he purchased a POCO F1 mobile phone on December 9, 2018, online from XIAOMI Technology India Private Limited for a sum of Rs17,817.

The mobile phone carried a warranty of one year. Sehgal started facing problems in the handset such as auto power off, Wi-Fi not working and heating issue soon after its purchase.

When her mother visited the service centre to get the mobile handset repaired, the company demanded Rs6,016.82. When her mother resisted, the centre refused to repair the mobile set. It charged Rs118 and returned the handset to her.

The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of the company and sought direction either to replace the handset with a new one or refund the invoice amount 17,817, along with Rs30,000 compensation. The company contested the complaint. In its reply, the company said the product was rendered out of warranty due to customer-induced damage.

After hearing the arguments, the commission noted that the claims of the company had no basis. The complainant went to the service centre with the complaints of auto power off, Wi-Fi not working and heating issue in the mobile handset in question and not for the replacement of touch panel.

Instead of resolving the issues, the centre raised a demand of Rs6016.82 by taking shelter of display damage. Small/minuscule scratch cannot be termed as damaged or violated the terms and conditions of warranty. The commission said in its view, the mobile set cannot be termed as physically damaged and the opposite party (company) was duty bound to repair the same.

Hence, the act of the opposite party in not repairing the handset and demanding Rs6,016.82 from the complainant certainly tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

In view of this, the opposite party is directed to immediately refund the invoice price of the mobile phone in question i.e. 17,817 to the complainant and pay Rs5,000 as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs5,000 as cost of litigation.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.