Consumer Court Orders Repair and Compensation for Consumer in Mobile Phone Insurance Claim Dispute

Consumer Protection Law Insider

LI Network

Published on: January 13, 2024 at 10:18 IST

In a recent landmark judgment from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Jalandhar, President Harveen Bhardwaj and Member Jyotsna ruled in favor of a consumer in a legal battle against Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd and associated parties. The case, identified as Complaint of 2019, centered on a disputed insurance claim for a Xiaomi mobile phone enrolled in the MI protection plan.


Opinder Singh Advocate, residing in Surya Enclave, Jalandhar, alleged that Xiaomi, through its MI protection plan, unjustly denied an insurance claim after his mobile phone suffered accidental damage by falling into a bathtub.

Key Allegations:

1. The complainant asserted having paid an additional Rs.999 for the MI protect plan, covering accidental and liquid damage.

2. Despite the complainant’s claim of accidental damage, the insurance claim was rejected by the company, alleging improper handling.

3. The subsequent failure of the Opposite Parties (OPs) to repair the phone led the complainant to purchase a new device, incurring additional expenses.

Legal Proceedings:

The Commission, presided over by Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj and Member Jyotsna, meticulously considered the evidence presented by both parties. OP No.3 (One Assist) raised objections, including claims of a false and frivolous complaint, non-joinder of necessary parties, lack of cause of action, and jurisdiction issues. OP No.1 (Xiaomi) failed to file a written statement, leading to the striking off of its defense.

“The complainant has categorically alleged that his foot got slipped in the bathroom, and his phone fell in the bathtub. This sudden fall in the bathroom due to slipping of the foot is purely accidental and cannot be said to be the negligent handling by the complainant,” the commission noted.

The Commission partly allowed the consumer’s complaint against OPs No.2 to 5, dismissing it against OP No.1 (Xiaomi) because Xiaomi is solely the manufacturer of the product.

Relief and Compensation for the Consumer:

OPs No.2 and 3 are directed to provide services and cover repair charges of Rs.11,615.92 with 6% interest from the date of damage. Additionally, OPs No.2, 3, 4, and 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.12,000 as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant.

Xiaomi, identified as OP No.1, faced dismissal, in the legal battle, as the Commission clarified that Xiaomi, as the manufacturer, is not directly responsible for the disputed insurance claim.

The commission concluded, “The complaint against OP No.1 is dismissed.”

Related Post