The epitome of the consumer complaint (herein after c. complaint) is Palash Das being complainant purchased a “Samsung C9 Pro” mobile handset from Reliance Digital shop on 08/04/2017 situated  at Rath Bari, English Bazar Malda, at a worth of Rs.36,900/- which was duly paid. Mobile in question was under warranty which confined period as 08/04/2018 to 07/04/2019. Now practically since 08/04/2019 the charger and camera of the subject-mobile started malfunctioning. Complainant approached to the regional office of consumer affairs Malda for negotiation. But OP paid no heed to it. Eventually he made this complaint before the consumer affairs dept. which was dropped with a direction by the department to approach before this Forum / Commission for redressal of grievances. Hence this complaint arose with a prayer to repair the handset at a free of cost and compensation for harassment and mental agony at the tune of Rs.15,000/-.

Complainant files all relevant documents related to this matter in order to substantiate grievance of complainant filed no-

1. Tax in voice,

2. Guarantee card,

3. Customer booklet, 

4. Complaint to A.D. of consumer affairs department Malda, complaint.

5. Information by the department to consumer,

6. Mediation report.

On the other OP-1 & 2 placed a W.V on 24-04-2019 along with a chief examination with affidavit confirming their W.V. by one Avijit Shaw, one of the employee of the OP-1. But his evidence was not tendered. Accordingly exparte hearing arose following the order under order-sheet of this record.

Submission at written version is that, OPs are manufacturer, Authorized dealer , Service center of RDL(Reliance Digital Limited) who are engaged in selling, repairing and maintained of electronics goods. This OPs are very honest and sincere and do business with goodwill. This complainant truly purchased this mobile “Samsung C9 Pro” handset from them at Rs.36,900/- on 08/04/2017 but since purchase he enjoyed the service of OP behind this mobile uninterruptedly. OP-2 is only a store who sell goods and no liability for any manufacturing defect. The mobile has the warranty which terms and condition was known to the complainant at the time of purchase and being satisfied with the warranty complainant purchased the mobile. OP-1 further submit that his is not liable for any manufacturing defect. Company is liable for that, where as he is only distributer and retailer. He is not responsible for manufacturing warranty. OP-1 acted as per warranty and complainant has no paper to show that OP-1 has any deficiency in service because he performed his part of duty. The case is not related with the consumer disputes. So it is not maintainable one. Case is subject to be dismissed.            

:: Decision with reason ::

Point to be decided:-

Whether complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for i.e repairing the mobile and compensation for mental agony and harassment.

Admitted fact complainant purchased the disputed-mobile “Samsung C9 Pro’’ handset from Reliance Digital Ltd. at a worth of Rs.36,900/- on 08/04/2017 (which is transpired from Ext-1 filed by the complainant photo copy). But warranty card i.e Ext-2 does not show the period of warranty as file by the complainant. Accordingly from this very document (W.C.) this Commission is in dark that on the date of filing complaint petition whether the mobile of the complainant was under warranty or not. Thereafter from the Ext-3 i.e “ResQ Plan” which remains in record as photo copies that shows that plan started from 08/04/2018 and ended on 07/04/2019.

Now on perusal of the evidence as given by the complainant on 14/08/2019 this Commission fined that, complainant said in para 9 of evidence “charger and camera of the mobile started to malfunction on and from 08/04/2019”. So apparently it is evident “ResQ Plan” ended on 07/04/2019 when malfunction was not started, i.e one day after of the ending of “ResQ Plan” malfunctioning started as per confined evidence and confined documents in record.

Accordingly when guaranty period or “ResQ Plan” was over i.e on 07/04/2019 this court / Commission has no power to grant order of free-service-repairing together with compensation to this complainant.

Next, to observe by the Commission that for the period of coverage for any insurance of this mobile is not under any clarification by the counsel of the complainant in which this Commission may direct to the insurer to compensate the value of mobile. Mainly speaking either counsel of the complainant or complainant himself both failed to produce any satisfactory argument, showing substantial documents either by original or by any cleared photo copies of documents as to be satisfied on the case and prayer of the complainant.

Naturally the case by the complainant miserably failed on the dearth of distinct submission. Insurance of the mobile if any was for this mobile, that authority also not made any parte to this case in which this point of insurance of the mobile maybe considered by this Commission instead of warranty of the purchased material.

Case fails.

Hence       Ordered,

the case is dismissed without any cost.

Let a copy of this judgment be given to the Complainant/O.P. free of cost on proper application.