China-based Transsion now eying India smartphone market
New Delhi, June 4: After strengthening its position in the Indian feature phone market, Chinese conglomerate Transsion Holdings is now looking at capturing a bigger pie of the competitive smartphone segment, the company's newly-appointed India CEO has stressed.
In 2017, the company sold approximately 130 million devices and achieved revenue of around 20 billion Yuan (Rs 21,000 crore) globally.
"After seeing tremendous growth for our brand itel in the Indian mobile handset market, we are now focused on creating a bigger space in the Indian smartphone market with a fresh line-up soon," Arijeet Talapatra, CEO of Transsion India, told hereon Monday.
The company is set to launch a series of Next-Gen smartphones aligned with the young consumers' needs in the country.
According to a CyberMedia Research (CMR) report, over the last one year, itel has emerged as the second largest player in the overall mobile phone market in India, capturing more than 9 per cent market share for 2017.
The brand registered an exponential growth of 217 per cent (year-on-year).
"We want to make itel a household name among Indian consumers," said Talapatra.
Transsion today has over 1,000 service touch points in India.
"Since our inception in India, we've been on a mission to provide a superior smartphone experience to all our customers through unique service proposition for all our brands," the CEO reiterated.
As the new CEO, Talapatra will lead the development and execution of the company's long-term strategy with a view to create shareholder value in alignment with the company's identity.
He will be responsible for leading the development and execution of long-term strategies, overall success of the organisation and making top-level managerial decisions.
"India is Transsion's second largest market after Africa. As per recent reports, we have already become the fifth largest mobile handset player in India," Talapatra told IANS.
Transsion Holdings recently launched its second exclusive "company-owned, company-operated (COCO)" service centre in India to provide customer services through its exclusive after-sales service brand called "Carlcare".
Transsion's previous COCO store was inaugurated at Noida in September last year.
"Owing to Carlcare's capabilities and faster repair efficiencies, we have strengthened our service commitment to the Indian customers by launching our second exclusive centre in Mumbai," Talapatra said.
According to the IDC, Transsion Group made its debut in the top 5 in India with more than three-fold annual growth in shipments in Q1 2018.
The China-based group has four brands under its umbrella -- itel, Tecno, Infinix and Spice.
In the first quarter of 2018, itel stood at third position with 13 per cent market share in the global feature phone market, said a Counterpoint report.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Use of 'bhangi', similar words not grounds for SC/ST Act charges: Rajasthan High Court
_vb_07.jpeg)
Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that words like "Bhangi," "Neech," "Bhikhari," and "Mangani" are not caste names and their usage does not attract charges under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
Justice Birendra Kumar made this observation while quashing SC/ST Act charges against four individuals accused of using these terms against public servants inspecting alleged encroachments in Jaisalmer in January 2011.
The Court noted that the words used did not refer to any caste and there was no indication that the accused intended to humiliate the public servants based on their caste. The judge further remarked that the alleged actions appeared to be a protest against the officials’ measurement process rather than an act of caste-based discrimination.
The case originated from a criminal complaint lodged after the accused allegedly obstructed officials and used abusive language during an encroachment inspection. Initially, the police found no evidence and filed a negative report. However, a protest petition led the trial court to frame charges under Sections 353, 332, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act.
Counsel for the accused argued that the petitioners were unaware of the officials' caste and there were no independent witnesses to prove that the incident occurred in public view. The High Court agreed, observing that only the informant and officials were witnesses, with no independent corroboration of the claims.
While discharging the accused from SC/ST Act charges, the Court upheld the charges under IPC Sections 353 and 332, finding prima facie evidence of obstruction and causing hurt to deter public servants from performing their duties.
The petitioners were represented by Advocate Leela Dhar Khatri, while Public Prosecutor Surendra Bishnoi appeared for the State.
