Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.

          This is  a petition  filed by the  complainant U/s. 35 of C.P.Act, 2019.

2.       The  case  of the  complainant is that he has  purchased  a Samsung F22 mobile phone  from opp.party No.1   on  November, 2019  by paying  an amount  of  Rs, 10,349.00 .Opp.party No.2  is the  service  provider. One  month  ago  he  had  seen  a  small red  spot on the  display screen of the  mobile  phone  which   gradually   enlarged  within  few  days. There  was no scratch   mark and   physical  damage sign   on the  mobile phone. The  complainant  took the  mobile  phone to opp.party No.2, the  service   provider who disclosed  him for  replacement  of the display screen on payment of  Rs. 5,000.00 .Thee  mobile phone  was within  warranty period  and  when the  complainant  inquired  about the  reason  for payment  within warranty period, the  service  provider   opp.party No.2 disclosed that  the  mobile set  was  damaged  internally. When the  complainant  challenged opp.party No.2 how   he   could  know the  internal damage  without  opening themobile  set. He was  unable  to  give  any   answer. The complainant   got  a  suggestion from the  Customer Care  Executive  and  went to opp.partyNo.2   in the  next morning  and  asked  him to prepare the   job sheet. The  staff  of  opp.party No.2  Mr.Abinash Mishra declined  to   prepare  the  job sheet but  after a  few minutes   he prepared  the  job sheet, in which he has mentioned that the  mobile phone is   out of  warranty  period. The  said  endorsement  of Mr.Mishra   on the  job sheet is  totally wrong. He  did not  repair the  mobile set   but  at the  time of  return   of the  mobile  phone  set  , charged  an amount of Rs. 177.00. The  complainant   put  forth  his  grievances before  opp.party  No1.  Several times, which is  not  fruitful. Hence this  complaint.

3.       Notice  was issued  to  both the opp.parties  through  Regd. Post  with A.D  on 09.09.2022. A.D of opp.party No.2 is  back after service  . The notice issued to  opp.party No.1  in  correct address through Regd.post  with A.D is not  back, so also   the  A.D of  opp.party No.1 is  not  back. So in  view  of  Section-27  of General Clauses Act, the service  of notice  on opp.party No1,  after  statutory period   of  30 days   is  deemed to be  sufficient.

4.       Both the opp.parties have  not  filed   their show cause. However,  opp.party No.1 filed his  affidavit evidence on 08.02.2023 and opp.party No.2  was set exparte on 12.01.2023.

5.       On perusal of  the  complaint petition, it appears  that one   Debajyoti Bhattacharya  is the  complainant  in this  case, who alleged that the  mobile  phone  set purchased by  him in the  month of November, 2021   from opp.party No.1  by  paying  an amount of Rs. 10,349.00  went   out  of  order  within the  warranty period. He also  alleged that  inspite of   his   approach  the opp.party No.1 & 2  did not    repaire the  mobile  phone  purchased  by  him. On the  other hand the opp.party No.2 has   taken an amount of Rs. 177.00  within  the  warranty  period. On perusal  of   Tax Invoice( Cash Memo)  it  is clear that   one Deepak Mishra  is the   purchaser of the mobile phone nor the  complainant. The  complainant is neither   purchaser of the  mobile  set  nor the  user of the same  with the  approval of the purchaser Deepak Mishra. Hence the  complainant  is  not a consumer  as   per definition U/s.2(7)(i) of Consumer Protection ,2019 . The  case  filed  by the   complainant  is  not  maintainable.

6.       Hence ordered :-

: O R D E R :

          The  case be  and  the same is dismissed  exparte against  the opp.party No.1 and  on contest  against  opp.party No.2.