Back
Midnight Inferno: Realme Phone Explodes, Delhi Court Slaps ₹1.5 Lakh Penalty on Manufacturer
In a stark warning to smartphone makers, the —presided by Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Dr. Rashmi Bansal (Member) —has held Realme Mobile Telecommunication (India) Pvt. Ltd. accountable for selling a defective Realme XT phone that exploded, inflicting burns on a aspirant and derailing his exam dreams. The commission awarded a total of ₹1.5 lakh in compensation, damages, and costs, plus 6% interest, emphasizing the manufacturer's duty to ensure battery safety.
From Ambitions to Hospital Bed: The Explosive Incident
Koti Sai Pavan, a civil services hopeful from outside Delhi, poured his father's retirement savings— ₹1.42 lakh —into coaching and rented a room for ₹5,000 monthly to crack the prelims on . He bought the Realme XT (6GB RAM, 64GB storage, IMEI 866121045031637) for ₹18,000 on .
Disaster struck in the early hours of . As Pavan slept, the phone—charging nearby—emitted a strange sound, then burst into flames , scorching his left arm, forehead, and fingers with first-degree burns and blisters. Eyewitnessed by his roommate, the blast charred the bedsheet and mattress. Rushed to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Pavan endured weeks of treatment but missed the exam, losing a year's preparation amid financial strain from library work and coaching fees.
Seeking redress, he approached Realme's service centre with Job Card E01-8220609015 (), demanding a replacement over repair fears. Later, they refused handover unless he signed off on "user-induced" damage— which he rejected—leaving him phoneless.
Realme's Defense Crumbles in Silence
Pavan filed complaint
DC/77/CC/120/2022
alleging
and
. Realme submitted a written statement but conspicuously skipped evidence production despite deadlines (closed
) and written arguments, even after hearings. The commission dismissed their pleadings as unproven, save admitted facts like the Job Card noting the phone
"not getting on and completely burnt."
An OP email even offered a ₹24,000 replacement, hinting awareness, but no technical rebuttal followed. As other reports note, this nonchalance amplified the commission's ire.
Court's Razor-Sharp Scrutiny: Batteries That Betray
Sifting photos of the melted, split handset and burst battery , hospital records (OPDs from ), dermatologist prescription for ₹50,000 laser sessions, admit card, and coaching receipts, the bench found Pavan's case ironclad. No purchase bill? Job Card and OP's own analysis sufficed, pinning purchase to 2019.
Realme's push for "user-induced" blame via unsigned acknowledgment flopped without proof. The commission lambasted the firm for not probing the fire hazard proactively, stressing:
"The explosion in the battery of the phone is a serious safety concern and should always be taken care of by the manufacturer with an utmost assurance that it would not fail in any circumstances."
No binding precedents were cited (noted para 18), but the ruling invokes core principles: trigger liability for injury, loss, and agony—here compounded by exam forfeiture.
Key Observations from the Bench
-
On the peril
:
"The said incidence may have caused a grave fire hazard had not been taken care of immediately by the complainant. OP response is not appreciated in dealing with the situation."
(Para 12) -
Manufacturer's duty
:
"Explosion of a mobile battery is a serious safety concern which manufacturers must address with utmost assurance of safety."
(Para 12) -
Exemplary rebuke
:
"The careless act of the OP demands imposition of an exemplary cost for supplying sub-standard battery/mobile phone... and compromised with the quality of the product that has caused him burn injury."
(Para 14) -
Holistic harm
:
"Complainant was sold a and because of which he has suffered not only the financial loss and physical injuries but the opportunity of appearing in the examination."
(Para 13)
Justice Served with Interest: Relief and Ripple Effects
The complaint succeeded fully: Realme must pay ₹1,00,000 (pain, injury, agony), ₹25,000 (damages), ₹25,000 (litigation)—total ₹1.5 lakh at 6% interest from . Default jumps to 9% , compliance due in 30 days (order dated —noted as future date in records).
This verdict underscores consumer forums' intolerance for shoddy electronics, potentially spurring stricter battery audits and swift replacements. For aspirants and users, it's a beacon: safety trumps warranties, and silence costs dearly.
Case:
