Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

               This is an Appeal u/s 15 of the C P Act, 1986 challenging the judgment and order dated 18/02/2016 passed by the Ld. District forum in Complaint Case No. CC/70/2016 rejecting the complaint at the threshold point by not admitting the same with the observation that the complaint, because of its being devoid of any service provider/purchaser relationship lacked the merit to be entertained under the Consumer Protection act, 1986.

               The fact, in brief, is that the Appellant/complainant had one SONY make Headphone which got damaged due to rat bite. The said Head-Phone, thereafter, because of its prolonged nonuse, received further damage in its ear cushion.

               The Appellant/Complainant contacted the Respondent/OP No.1 who, on examination of the Headphone, found the damages, caused externally, was so grave that the instrument was beyond repair. They, since the Headphone, as alleged in the complaint, was beyond warranty, offered him a replacement of the said Headphone of his choice providing him an offer of discount of 25% on the MRP of the said product.

               The aggrieved Appellant/Complainant, considering the above action on the part of the respondent/OP No. 1 a deficiency in rendering services, filed the complaint case making the Pollution control board also a party to it as OP No.2, the Respondent/OP No. 2 herein. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Forum in the said complaint case was under challenge in the instant Appeal.

               The complainant submitted exactly in the lines of his complaint focusing more on the irregularities being practiced by the respondent/OP No.1 in disposal of e-waste and for lack of monitoring on the part of the Respondent/OP No. 2 which, as submitted further, had encouraged the violators of e-waste norms.

               With his very short submission as above, the Ld. Advocate prayed for the Appeal to be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and order.

               Perused the papers on record. The Appellant/complainant did not submit any document to substantiate the actual date of purchase of the goods and the price of the same. Since the contention made by the Respondent/OP No. 1 towards expiry of the period of warranty of the goods purchased remained uncontroverted, we have reasons to believe that the contention was having ingredients of truth, particularly when, there was no convincing evidence in the record confirming the exact date of purchase of the goods.

               The external damage caused to the electronic goods by rat cannot be an issue which the manufacturer is responsible for. In fact, change or replacement of the goods on expiry of warranty is also an unreasonable claim. The Respondent/OP 1’s proposal for replacement of the same at a discounted rate, put forward under letter dated 08/02/2016 does not seem to be unreasonable one in the above perspective which the Appellant/Complainant did not accept. There was, therefore, no deficiency on the part of the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1.

               The e-waste issue which also forms part of the complaint does not seem to be an issue fit for adjudication in the Forum.

               Hence, ordered that the Appeal stands dismissed. The impugned judgment and order stands affirmed. No order as to costs.