Aspirant injured day before UPSC exam
The complainant, a UPSC aspirant, had purchased a Realme XT mobile phone in October 2019 for Rs 18,000. According to his plea, the device exploded in the early hours of June 4, 2022, while he was asleep, causing burn injuries to his arm, forehead, and fingers.
The incident occurred just a day before his UPSC preliminary examination scheduled for June 5, 2022. Due to the injuries and subsequent hospitalisation, he was unable to appear for the exam, losing an entire year of preparation.
Medical records from Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital confirmed burn injuries consistent with a phone blast, while photographs showed a completely burnt device and damaged surroundings.
Impact on aspirant’s career
The commission acknowledged the broader consequences of the incident, noting that the UPSC aspirant lost a crucial attempt at a highly competitive examination conducted only once a year. It also recognised the financial burden of repeating coaching and living expenses.
Story continues below this ad
Stating that the UPSC aspirant was sold a defective product and because of which he has suffered not only the financial loss and physical injuries, the commission said that he also lost the opportunity of appearing in the prelims examination which was scheduled on the next day of the incident, June 5, 2022.
The commission said that for this exam, the UPSC aspirant has been preparing for a year and was residing in rented accommodation in Delhi and came to avail coaching for the said examination from his native place.
“The said incident has affected his future and his preparation for the whole month got wasted. The said exam is scheduled once in a year which implies that the complainant would be able to appear in the examination after one year and he has to spend again his time and money in the rented accommodation and re-start his preparation,” the order noted, underlining the long-term impact on his career trajectory.
Findings: Defective product, safety lapse
- The commission concluded that the UPSC aspirant had successfully established that the explosion was caused by a defective battery.
- The consumer disputes redressal body emphasised that manufacturers have a duty to ensure safety standards and respond proactively to such incidents.
- It also remarked that the incident could have escalated into a major fire hazard, highlighting the gravity of the defect and the company’s inadequate response.
- The consumer body said that it was essential for the opposite party (OP) company to proactively take action to reimburse the loss caused to the complainant and conduct a thorough investigation into the cause of this dangerous incident.
- “The said incident may have caused a grave fire hazard had it not been taken care of immediately by the complainant. OP’s response is not appreciated in dealing with the situation. Moreover, after filing the written statement, OP did not bother to file the evidence or even the written argument to defend itself, which clearly shows that OP had nothing to say in its defence,” it added.
Compensation awarded
Taking into account the injuries, mental trauma, financial loss, and missed examination opportunity, the commission awarded:
Story continues below this ad
- Rs 1,00,000 as compensation for pain, injury, and mental agony
- Rs 25,000 as damages
- Rs 25,000 towards litigation costs
All amounts will carry 6 per cent annual interest from October 1, 2022 (date of complaint), increasing to 9 per cent if not paid within 30 days.
Allegations of deficiency, harassment
The UPSC aspirant alleged that despite reporting the incident to the company’s service centre, he was asked to accept that the damage was “user-induced” before the device could be returned. Upon his refusal, the phone was not handed back.
He further claimed financial hardship, noting that the retirement savings of the UPSC aspirant’s father had been invested in coaching fees and that he worked part-time to sustain himself. The injuries also required ongoing treatment, including costly laser procedures for burn scars.
He submitted that he would be required to again join coaching at a cost of approximately Rs 1.42 lakh, along with living expenses of approximately Rs 60 000. He also said that he incurred Rs 25000 towards legal expenses for filing the present complaint.
Story continues below this ad
The complainant also prayed for a refund of Rs 18,000 (cost of mobile), Rs 60,000 (medical expenses), Rs 2.02 lakh (coaching and living expenses), Rs 5 lakh (mental and physical harassment), and Rs 25,000 (litigation cost).
The complaint sought over Rs 8 lakh under various heads, including medical expenses, coaching costs, mental agony, and litigation expenses.
Company fails to defend case
While the company filed a written statement, it failed to produce any evidence or written arguments despite multiple opportunities. The consumer commission noted that mere pleadings without supporting evidence carry no evidentiary value.
This failure significantly weakened the company’s defence, with the consumer commission observing that the absence of evidence indicated it had “nothing to say in its defence.”
Story continues below this ad
Consumer safety message
The ruling sends a strong message to manufacturers about accountability and product safety, especially in cases involving potentially dangerous defects. It also reinforces the role of consumer forums in providing timely redressal where negligence leads to personal injury and financial loss.
The commission ultimately held that the company’s “careless act” warranted not just compensation but also exemplary costs, stressing that such lapses cannot be taken lightly in a market driven by consumer trust.
