On May 17th 2016, I placed order for two Redmi 2 Prime phones (colour Dark Grey 16G) phones through the website http://www.mi.com/in/ and paid immediately through Netbanking facility. The order no. 5160518456500309 was processed on May 18, 2016 and invoice no. 1463543776783657712 was generated by Rocket Kommerce LLP. The delivery for the same was made on May 19, 2016 at my office in Coimbatore.

One of the two phones was found to be “defective” – the phone was not recognising the SIM card (which other phones were able to). The primary purpose of the phone was communication using SIM card and hence, it is valid to call it “defective.”

On March 29th 2016, the Government of India issued the Press Note No. 3 (2016 Series) under the subject “Guidelines for FDI in E-Commerce.” Specifically, the Guidelines touched upon the responsibilities of the seller in the market place and brought some parity between online retailers and brick-and-mortar retailers. It clearly states,

In marketplace model goods/services made available for electronically on website should clearly provide name, address and other contact details of the seller. Post sales, delivery of goods to customers and customer satisfaction will be responsibility of the seller.

Following the receipt of the defective device, I lodged a complaint through their online chat facility as soon as I discovered it. I was asked to perform some tests on the device and they failed too. The customer service executive informed me that he/she will initiate the replacement of the device. However, I did not receive any information about replacement and I complained again on May 20, 2016 through online chat. I proceeded to call their customer executive through the toll-free number on May 20, 2016. The service person advised me to visit the nearest service centre and get the device checked. I responded that this was completely unacceptable for I resorted to online purchase out of convenience and hence, the seller cannot “force” me to visit a service centre. This was also in contravention to the notification by Government of India referred above as the responsibility for customer satisfaction is vested with the seller. In the meantime, I exchanged e-mails with their service centre and received similar replies.

Finally, on 24th May, the company arranged for BlueDart express (courier service) to pick up the device from me to be transported to their warehouse. The company would arrange for replacement within 5-7 business days only after the receipt of the device. I insisted that the company sends a signed letter containing assurance of replacement in exchange for the defective phone, which was flatly refused. This was necessary for me because, their “process” was favouring them entirely.

As such, the company enjoys the advantage of holding my cash until the date of delivery and now, they seek the device leaving me with nothing to hold to. The company can delay the delivery of the replacement as many days as they wish to, as there is no documentary evidence for the receipt of the device or assurance of replacement. They can even deny me a replacement as there is no record of promising me except a few automated e-mails. The e-mail from the company on 24th May states clearly “If the product doesn’t reach warehouse, your product will not be considered for replacement.” Since it is beyond my control to ensure that the product reaches the warehouse, it is fairly obvious that I can be denied a replacement without a reason. And here’s a example of a similar situation

@RedmiIndia Raised replacement request (160503-001132) since the mobile was defective till now no answer. Its been 20 days till now #chor — Judge Singh (@Judge_Eyes) May 23, 2016

It astonishes as to how online seller have complete advantage over the buyer. In event of a legal action, I realise that I can only file a complaint against an unknown entity called Rocket Kommerce LLP and not Xiomi India. Some questions that the company refused to answer:

If the product can be delivered within 2 days, why should the replacement take 5-7 “business days”? Why the company cannot send their service engineer from Coimbatore to assist the customer? Why the company cannot send the replacement device first and then collect the defective device? This would have been very much a feature of brick and mortar shop and hence, it is rational to expect an online retailer to do the same.

Since online retail has been projected as the “Game Changer” and challenges the traditional brick and mortar stores, the following questions are also pertinent.

How can online retailers be relied to ensure quality of products before delivery? Should there be certain stipulations before a company can engage on online retail? Is there any way that companies selling poor quality products can be blacklisted? What are the measures in place to deal with complaints over the products sold through online retail? Should online retailers be mandated to have service personnel within a certain distance of the areas where their products are sold? What are the means for legal recourse? I have been earlier cheated by flipkart (more about that in next blog) and now by Xiomi and absolutely clueless about steps to be taken. What are the rules and regulations pertaining to holding customer’s money by the seller? Even if I trust the company and resort to replment in the manner suggested by them, I am still penalised by the company holding my cash without delivering the goods.

Online retail is here to stay and sellers would continue to “bully” the buyers unless the Government takes some stern action. With plenty of VC funding pumped into these entities, they may have all the legal and political means to dominate the customers.

I am also updating with few more complaints about Redmi