Xiaomi Redmi Note 7S, one of the most popular smartphones, has caught fire. In an incident, Ishwar Chavhan, a Mumbai-based Redmi user posted pictures of his Redmi Note 7S after it caught fire. However, the Chinese smartphone maker refused to take blame for the explosion. Chavhan blamed the company and said his Redmi caught fire because of a manufacturing defect. However, the company is refusing to take the blame for this incident. It said that the Redmi Note 7S exploded because of customer’s own doing.
Photo: Business Today
According to a report by The Times of India, Xiaomi said that the damage to the smartphone was “customer induced.” In a tweet, Chavhan explained that be purchased the Redmi Note 7S online from Flipkart in October. He claims the phone was working fine and it suddenly caught fire. He further notes that the smartphone was neither charging nor was it dropped at any point. Chavhan, in his tweets, speculates that the device caught fire because of a manufacturing defect. He seems to have deleted his Twitter account, which only raises suspicion around this claim.
Watch: Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro Review
After his Redmi Note 7S caught fire, Chavhan contacted authorized Xiaomi store in Thane. The company examined the phone and told Chavhan that there was an issue with the battery. Soon after, he posted on Twitter that manufacturing defect led to explosion and he is not happy with Xiaomi’s after-sales service. However, Xiaomi has refuted his claim and has said that the damage is caused by an “external force”. The incident comes just days after Xiaomi’s “Quality with Mi” announcement.
“At Xiaomi, quality of our products is of utmost importance. The trust that Mi Fans have shown in the brand for the past 5 years is a testament to that,” the company said. “We also take pride in having one of the strongest after-sales networks in the country with an aim to solve customer issues seamlessly. In this particular case, after careful examination, it was concluded that the damage was caused due to external force, and thus, classified under ‘customer induced damage.”
