Not repairing Chandigarh resident’s TV properly costs manufacturer dear

Filing a complaint against Xiaomi India, Bengaluru, and others, Himanshu Sharma had submitted that he bought a TV in December 2018; in July 2021, it suddenly turned off, following which he approached the company that changed the TV’s power supply after finding it defective

A Sector-40 resident, who dragged an electronics manufacturer to consumer court for not fixing his faulty television properly, has been awarded ₹5,000 compensation and free repair within 45 days.

The manufacturer claimed that the complainant had failed to provide any substantial evidence, as required under the law, that the alleged defects in the product were caused by a manufacturing defect. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

Holding Xiaomi India guilty of unfair trade practice, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has also directed the firm to pay ₹5,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant, Himanshu Sharma.

Filing a complaint against Xiaomi India, Bengaluru, and others, Sharma had submitted that he bought a TV in December 2018. In July 2021, it suddenly turned off, following which he approached the company that changed the TV’s power supply after finding it defective.

Sharma was told that since the warranty period had expired, he will have to pay over ₹3,000 for the replaced part.

Sharma said he made the payment, but the TV turned off again after a couple of days. It was repaired again, but still did not work. The engineers then told him that there might be fault in the motherboard and to confirm this fact, he will have to pay ₹11,000 in advance for diagnosis. When Sharma asked for free service, they refused, on which he approached the consumer court.

In response, the company claimed that the complainant had failed to provide any substantial evidence, as required under the law, that the alleged defects in the product were caused by a manufacturing defect.

It alleged that had there been any manufacturing defect, he would not have been able to use the product for such a long period without any issue. Also, the warranty period is only one year, so he cannot demand free repair services after over two years of purchase.

However, the commission observed, “Once the repairs were carried out on payment basis, the TV was expected to function properly at least for a reasonable period of six months. Due to non-functioning of TV within a period of 10 days after carrying out necessary repairs, the opposition party (company) is found to have not repaired the TV properly to the satisfaction of this commission and by demanding of ₹10,000 more, within a period of 10 days of repair, the company has indulged in unfair trade practice.”

Hence, the company was directed to repair the TV without any additional charge within 45 days, pay ₹5,000 as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment, and ₹5,000 as litigation costs.