Yangzi Evening News WeChat officially reported on July 16 that Mr. Chen’s Xiaomi mobile phone suddenly spontaneously ignited when charging at home. The mobile phone not only burned out, but also blackened the bedside table. He wrote the rights protection as a 'diary' and broadcasted live on the Internet.
When contacting the sellers and manufacturers, the compensation schemes provided by the parties are very different: the online shop as the seller is only willing to pay 300 yuan, and the manufacturer asks Mr. Chen to sign a confidentiality agreement and is willing to pay the original price for the loss of 1799 for mobile phones and bedside tables. yuan.
At present, the rights have not yet ended, and Mr. Chen’s heart is full of question marks.
Mobile phone 'self-ignition', online shop reply compensation 300 yuan
In 2016, Mr. Chen purchased a Xiaomi max 1 generation mobile phone at the official flagship store of an e-commerce company in Nanjing on Taobao, the price was 1299 yuan.
On July 4 this year, Mr. Chen’s Xiaomi mobile phone was suspected of spontaneous combustion when charging at home. Not only was the mobile phone completely damaged, but it also blackened the bedside table at home.
'At the time my parents were at home, they went online in another room, watched TV, and suddenly smelled burnt in the bedroom. I ran to see that the charging phone was smoking.'
Mr. Chen told the reporter that his parents did not hear the explosion at the time, but afterwards they saw signs of cracking in the damaged mobile phone case.
On the day of the incident, Mr. Chen contacted the official flagship store that purchased the mobile phone at the time. On the 5th, Mr. Chen received a reply, saying that he needed to send a check, and he was in contact with Xiaomi. On the 7th Saturday afternoon, the last reply given by the online store said. 'Xiaomi does not accept insurance products, promises to compensate for mobile phone losses, after discounting is 300 yuan'. In this regard, Mr. Chen can not accept.
Xiaomi company is willing to pay the original price, but must 'seal'
On Monday, July 9, Mr. Chen called the home appliance company's registration place in Nanjing early in the morning, Nanjing Consumers Association, said that he would complain about this home appliance business, and call directly to contact Xiaomi after-sales. Xiaomi accepted Chen after sale. Mr.'s complaint, and designated an authorized store for the inspection location.
According to the call recording provided by Mr. Chen, the store technicians clearly stated that although the charging cable is the accessory of other models of Xiaomi mobile phone, it is not the original match of max1, but it does not cause the explosion of the mobile phone. Mr. Chen can apply for compensation for the original machine or discounted by the manufacturer. .
At the same time, Mr. Chen was on the 'Knowing' online in the form of a rights-keeping diary to 'live' his own rights. On the 10th, Mr. Chen received a phone call from Xiaomi. 'Xiaomi asked for a post, I firmly refused, Xiaomi The party also said that it has never received relevant information from e-commerce companies, and there is no such thing as 'Millet does not accept insurance mobile phone detection'.
Finally, Mr. Chen and Xiaomi reached an oral reconciliation. Xiaomi promised to compensate the mobile phone for 1299 yuan and the bedside table for 500 yuan for a total of 1799 yuan. At the same time, Mr. Chen was asked to sign the agreement. 'The agreement requires that the matter cannot be published on the Internet or the media.'
Online shop and manufacturer contradict each other, who is right?
On the 11th, after leaving work, Mr. Chen went to the Xiaomi store to see the agreement and put forward several amendments. The store manager said that he would report it to the company. On the other hand, Mr. Chen felt that Xiaomi Fang and the online shop were contradictory and a bit embarrassed.
In the following contact, the online shop insisted that it had contacted Xiaomi, and Xiaomi refused to accept the mobile phone; Xiaomi also denied that it did not receive the complaint information from the online store, and would not accept the mobile phone. . '
Therefore, Mr. Chen, who decided to be more realistic, asked the home appliance company to ask for a recording of the call when they contacted Xiaomi. On the 13th, when the online shop party contacted Mr. Chen, the attitude changed, indicating that the mobile phone had passed. After the insurance, it is impossible to compensate. I can only go to Xiaomi. At the same time, as of press time, Xiaomi did not further contact Mr. Chen on the matter of amending the agreement.
Consumer confusion
If I don't post, I can only get 300 yuan. Can the compensation standard be unified and transparent?
At present, Mr. Chen is still waiting for news. He also feels a lot of emotions for a week of tossing back and forth.
'The yield of the product is unlikely to reach 100%. There will always be a small probability of happening. Therefore, a ruler is the right amount to solve the problem fairly and transparently.
Now Mr. Chen has a lot of question marks in his heart. 'If I accepted the online store solution before, then I can get the compensation of only 300 yuan. And I sent a post, which can get 1799 yuan in Xiaomi. Then I Can't help but guess, if I agree to delete the post, can I get more compensation? So, is it too unfair for those who are not good at posting online and are not sure about the way to defend their rights?
Regarding Mr. Chen’s current confusion, an online shopping rights expert from the Xuanwu District Market Supervision Bureau of Nanjing explained that in the circulation field, the responsibility of the manufacturer and the seller is the same. Consumers can choose their own and find more favorable to themselves. Program.
He believes that the quality of the mobile phone, the three guarantees can be returned within 7 days, can be exchanged within 15 days. From the actual situation of rights protection, within 15 days, it is recommended that consumers and sellers defend rights, after more than 15 days, and manufacturers Safeguarding rights is more beneficial.
Lawyer interpretation
Whether consumers are 'confidential' is not a prerequisite for compensation.
According to the relevant regulations, when consumers purchase and use goods, if the product is damaged due to defects in the product, the seller may claim compensation from the seller or the manufacturer. Therefore, Mr. Chen can ask for compensation from the online shop, and can also ask the mobile phone manufacturer for compensation.
Hua Zhen noted that in this case, Xiaomi is also willing to sign a agreement to keep the matter confidential while being willing to pay for the loss of the consumer.
'Xiami company as a manufacturer, in the case of product defects caused by personal, property damage to consumers is based on legal provisions, not based on the agreement of both parties. The liability is not based on the consumer must fulfill confidentiality obligations.
He explained that if it proves that Mr. Chen’s mobile phone damage is caused by a defect in the product, it may threaten the personal life of the unspecified majority, property security, and social public interest. According to the regulations, the operator If the defect is dangerous to the person and the property is dangerous, it shall immediately report to the relevant administrative department and inform the consumer, and take measures such as stopping sales, warning, recall, etc., and may not cover the product quality problem by means of confidentiality. In this case Next, signing the confidentiality clause in the compensation agreement is obviously in violation of the law, even if it is signed, it is invalid.Yangzi Evening News All-Media Reporter Zhang Ke)
"Yangzi Evening News 》 Original link http://www.sohu.com/a/241466967_219988
