This is an application U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act filed by the petitioner Sri Saikat Das praying Rs.5,000/- as  compensation and replacement of his mobile phone by a new one of same specification or refund of price being Rs.3,400/-and litigation cost etc. being Rs.5,000/-.

            The case of the petitioner is that he purchased one Micromax A34, INEI 911326555933669 from Pariseba , Hooghly Station road on 28.5.2014 and the warranty period of the product was one year. Within one month of purchase the product showed a white line on the screen and he went to the shop who referred into the service centre at Chandernagore and he went there at 427, G.T.Road, Padripara, where the set was taken by oP no.2 M/s J.K.Enterprise and he was asked to come after two weeks. On 14^th October , 2014 again the same problem surfaced and he again reported the matter to the shop who told that it was  a technical problem and asked him to go to Service center and went there and reported and they claimed Rs.1090/- for repairing charges even though it was well

within the warranty period when the Op no.2 returned the mobile then the petitioner found some dark patches over the screen and he drew the attention of the employees there who hurled abusive language to him . The petitioner got shock and found betrayed by the company and filed this case.

            The oP no.3  contested the case by filing a written objection denying the allegations made against them and submitted that the case is not maintainable and the allegation is totally false . The warranty conditions lying in para 3 and 5 in customer details cum warranty card are that the repairs under warranty period shall be carried out by the company authorized persons and also it is the responsibility of the customer to come to the service center and the company would provide the service and the company would not provide any home service. This case being a false one is liable to be dismissed.

            Op no. 1 and 2 though served with notice yet did not contest the case and so the case is heard exparte against them.

            On the above cases of the parties the following issues are framed.

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form ?

   -4-

2. Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief as prayed for ?

DECISION WITH REASONS :

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration.

            In support of his case the petitioner Saikat Das filed affidavit as well as he filed the purchase receipt showing purchase of Micromax A34 Mobile phone on payment of Rs.3,400/- from the oP no.3 . It is categorically mentioned in the money receipt that the service would be provided by the company itself within the warranty period and the company being the manufacturer would repair the goods . This forum heard the learned counsels of both sides and also keeping in mind the warranty conditions finds that the warranty was applicable for 12 months and the petitioner having purchased this mobile phone on 28.5.2014  and filing this case on 17.10.2014 was well within the warranty period and it is from the very submission of the counsel for the OP that the mobile was a defective one and he submitted before the Forum that they would replace the mobile phone . This Forum also finds that even after repair of the mobile phone the defects

continued and so there would be replacement of the defective hand set with a new hand set. The petitioner prayed for compensation but this Forum denies such compensation on the ground that the petitioner used the hand set for a certain period and was not entitled to any such compensation as laid down in the case of Harprith Singh –Vs- Telcom IV, 2009 CPJ page 4, wherein the commission opined the same tune.

            In view of above4 discussions and findings this Forum finds that the petitioner is entitled to replacement of his old mobile set with a new one of same specification or even better and regarding compensation  etc. the prays the prayer is denied.

            Court fees paid is correct.

                                                            Hence ordered

            That the C.Case no. 224 of 2014 be and the same is allowed on contest against Op no.3 without cost  and exparte against Op no. 1 and 2 without cost. The petitioner is entitled to get his old mobile set replaced with a new one by the Ops who would replace the mobile within 30 days from the date of this order the ,

failing, the petitioner would put this final order in execution. Regarding his prayer for compensation etc., the same is denied by this Forum.

            Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.