F i n a l   O r d e r               

The complaint u/S. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 initially filed by a minor represented through his father as natural guardian, canvassed the fact of purchasing a mobile namely ‘Gionee’ IMEL No.868130026165840 from O.P. No.1 namely Joy Electronics at Rs.5850/- on 24.02.2016. The O.P. No.1 supplied warranty card which consists of 12 months warranty and 6 months for accessories –batteries, adaptor etc from the date of purchase.  But after purchase since 15.06.2016, mobile became inoperative.  Accordingly, as the mobile was under warranty period complainant instantly rushes to the O.P. No.1 Joy Electronics who referred the matter to Gionee Service Center at Burdwan who became O.P. No.2 in this case. O.P. No.2 by his employer one Pravat examined the mobile and said about a massive change which is to be done on the mobile to bring back original condition of the mobile. This complainant was unable to repair his handset due to non cooperation of the officer of O.P.No.2. Complainant again came back to O.P. No.1 from whom he purchased the mobile but O.P. No.1 paid no heed to his complaint. Hence, he approached before this Commission with a prayer to replace his handset and also with a prayer for compensation at the tune of Rs.30,000/- due to negligent act of the O.Ps and deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by them. He prayed further Rs.20,000/- for his unnecessary harassment and 20,000/- as litigation cost behind it.

During passage of time of the trial minor became major under record.

   O.P. No.1 Joy Electronic, the shop keeper who only responded to the summon and by W/V stated that he has no liability behind any defect of the mobile because he  sold this mobile on bringing it from the dealer of Gionee. That apart, it was mentioned in the voucher of this mobile that the sold goods would not be returned or replaced.  As per warranty matter it is to be taken by the manufacturer and customer care centre i.e., O.P. Nos.2 & 3 when this O.P. No.1 as shop keeper has no concern with it. So the case should be dismissed against him.

   The other two O.Ps intentionally avoided the summon as given by the Commission since those were refused.

Decisions with Reasons

This Commission carefully perused the entire materials on record along with the W.N.A. which only filed by the complainant.

On perusal of the record it is admitted position that the mobile was purchased by the complainant through guardian from the shop of O.P. No.1 as shop keeper. Now on perusal of the record, from the invoice of the mobile which filed as internet copy before this Commission, We find this internet copy of invoice reflects a foot-noting under the invoice that, ‘’ (1) Goods once sold cannot be taken back or exchanged. (2) Warranty obligations whenever applicable will be fulfilled either by the respective company or by their Authorized Service Center as per their Terms & Conditions only”.             So as per content of this invoice which produced as document by the complainant, we find this shop keeper in the form of the O.P. No.1 from the very inception of selling, kept himself (O.P. No.1) beyond taking any responsibility of selling any defective product as per foot-noting under the invoice and this very purchaser through his guardian on seeing the foot-noting under the invoice, purchased this product on consenting about the full responsibility of manufacturer and the customer care center.

   In Para Nos.14 & 16 of W/V of this O.P. No.1 in detail it was spoken or stated that the mobile was sold in a sealed /packed condition fetching it from the authorized dealer, thereafter on selecting the mobile from their display this customer bought this handset.               Accordingly, apparently when no contract is being seen directly in between the shop keeper and the customer save and except conditions mentioned in the invoice, the matter of deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice cannot be attributed to this O.P. No.1 specially because when  either service center or manufacturer would be responsible as per invoice of the mobile. We find as per W/V, this O.P. No.1 mere bought the mobile from an authorized dealer in sealed packed condition and show it to the customer when the customer purchased it. This complainant did not place any document before the Court/Commission that this O.P. No.1 was acting as any dealer of this mobile.

   That apart we find there no direct-proof remains in the hand of this Commission as to which type of defect remains in the handset by any expert opinion, resulting which this Commission failed to understand whether the defect or the default in the handset was covered under the warranty or not. We opine this complainant should have sent this handset to any expert for any opinion about the specific defect which would cover the conditions of warranty.

   Apart from that on going through the illegible warranty card which produced before this Commission, this Commission  failed to realize whether all the conditions of warranty card or its clauses were actually fulfilled or covered or not by the complainant  specifically on the point of 9 (III) under warranty card which relates that “The limited warranty coverage to consumer shall come and no longer be available under any of the following conditions i.e.,  The product has been subject to use in a manner not according to instructions given in the User/Instruction Manual, mishandled, misused, improper storage, exposure to moisture/dampness, temperature of other such environmental conditions, unauthorized modifications, unauthorized repair including but not limited to the use of unauthorized spare parts in repairs. Acts of God spill of foods or liquids, maladjustments to Consumer controls or other acts which are beyond the resource/controls of the Company and defects that arise not due to normal wear and tear of the product”.

So, it is fact under the aforesaid clause of warranty card, if the mobile was placed before any expert, this Commission can understand/realize whether the point No.9 (III) of the warranty card was caused or not by the minor user of handset which was quite possible.

Accordingly the complainant fails on the dearth of proper proof.

Hence, it is                                                      

                                                   O r d e r e d  

that the complaint gets no success. Under judicial consideration, no order of cost is being made.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties on free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me.

President       

D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman.

Member                                                                            President                

               D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman                                                             D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman

Let the record be sent to the record room through the Registrar for necessary action.