No step by either party.
    We have decided to pass judgment today. The Forum passing the judgment accordingly. 
    We have gone through the petition. filed by one Saikat Saha. Case was filed against O.P. Shyamal Banik, Proprietor of SB Electronics, Logica Telecom and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
    Notice served upon the O.P. No.1 Shyamal Banik. Notice also sent to other 2 O.Ps No. 2 and 3. But none appeared to contest the claim. So case proceeded  exparte against  all O.Ps as per order dated 01.04.16. Petitioner Saikat Saha appeared, produced evidence in support of his case. 
    Petitioner's case in short is that he purchased one mobile phone Samsung Smart phone on 17.06.15 on payment of Rs.19,400/-. The product had warranty coverage for a period of one year up to 16.06.16. But during the warranty period on 26.10.15 the mobile set became blank, display system was not working. So, he went to the service centre in the shop of O.P. No.1, SB Electronics, authorized service centre of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. But the authorized service centre refused to provide free service inspite of request by the complainant. Complainant then made communication with the Samsung India Ltd. The customer care of this company did not take any step. Lawyer's notice sent. It was not answered. In such a position petitioner Saikat Saha filed this complaint before this Forum for getting redress.
    O.P. did not appear after receipt of notice. 
    Petitioner then produced the cash memo, photocopy of warranty, acknowledgment, service request, lawyer's notice, postal receipt, track report. 
Petitioner also produced statement of affidavit of 2 witnesses.
    We have gone through all the documents and the evidence given. From the documents, Exhibit- 1 series it is found that the mobile set was purchased on payment of Rs.19,400/-. Payment receipt was issued by Logica Telecom, O.P. No.2. From the warranty card produced it is found that the warranty period was one year. It covers only the defects in products arising out of manufacturing or faulty workmanship. Warranty covers repair/ replacement of parts. Warranty is applicable for purchase from authorized seller and authorized service centre. In this case product was purchased from authorized seller, O.P. No.2 and the product was placed before the authorized service centre, SB Electronics, the shop of O.P. No.1. Service request was registered. 
    We have gone through the service request acknowledgment (Exhibit-1 Series). It is issued by SB Electronics, authorized service centre of Samsung. From perusal of acknowledgment of service request it is found that the O.P. No.1 wrote in the service request that the product is out of warranty.  Defect was described as 'Octa panel smashed', in the remarks column it  is written that 'display blank'. Product was purchased admittedly on 17.06.15. request for repairing was on 27.10.15 i.e., after 4 months of purchase. Why in the service 
request it is written that out of warranty not clear. The warranty would be carried out subject to warranty validation by service centre staff. But the Samsung service centre did not validate and wrote it out of warranty. Why it is out of warranty not explained by Samsung Service Centre. O.P. No.3 the company did not appear. Why the product purchased just 4 months back is out of  warranty not clarified. The service centre customer care of the Samsung did not validate service request for the repair. The service centre did not pursue the matter. Petitioner made communication with the service centre customer care centre but no positive response was received. These are total deficiency of service by Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. O.P. No.1 service centre also had deficiency of service as they failed to provide free service for repairing mobile phone within the warranty period. We have gone through the warranty. It covers the free repairing within the period of one year. But SB Electronics being authorized service centre failed to repair it within the warranty period of one year. The customer care of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. failed to provide proper service and did not give due instruction to authorized service centre SB Electronics. This is unfair trade practice by Samsung India Electronics and it is also deficiency of service. The seller, Logica Telecom had no fault. So, Logica Telecom O.P. No.2 is exonerated from any charge. 
    From the proper appreciation of the exparte evidence it is clear that O.P. No.1, Sri Shyamal Banik and O.P. No.3, Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. adopted unfair trade practice and also they had deficiency of service. They did not provide proper service to the customer, Saikat Saha who is the consumer. Thus, the consumer suffered because of the deficiency of service of Shyamal Banik and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. He did not get the mobile service for a longer period and had to suffer a lot. Therefore, he is entitled to get compensation for the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service of both service provider, Shyamal Banik, Proprietor of authorized service centre and also manufacturing company, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 
    We therefore,  direct both O.P. No.1 and 3 to repair the mobile phone or replace it without fail within one month. We direct both the O.P. No.1 and 3 to pay compensation amounting to Rs.40,000/-(Rs.20,000/- + Rs.20,000/-)  to the petitioner and also Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost, total  Rs.45, 000/-(Rs.22,500/- + Rs.22,500/-) . We direct the O.P. No.1 and 3 to pay Rs.45,000/-(Rupees forty five thousand) as compensation to the petitioner and also repair or replace the mobile phone SM-E700HZBDINMS model within 2 months or replace or pay its price Rs.19,540/- in addition to compensation Rs.45,000/-. In case of failure it will carry penal interest @ 9% P.A.
    Announced.
    Supply copy of the order to the parties.