Date of filing : 04-09-2008. Date of order : 12-12-2008. IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.157/08 Dated this, the 12th day of December 2008. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Yashwanth Shetty, R/at Soorlu House, } Complainant Nullipady, Kasaragod. 671 121. (In Person) The Proprietor, Profits, Mobile Zone, Land Mark Centre, } Opposite party Near Bus Stand, Kasaragod.671121 ( Adv.George JohnPlamootil Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.KT.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT The grievance of the complainant Yashwanth Shetty is that the Nokia Phone worth Rs.2600/- he purchased from opposite party on 22-3-08 became dead in August 2008 within the warranty period. But instead of rectifying the defects the opposite party returned the Mobile Phone set to complainant for the reason RWR water logged. Complainant is confident that the set has not fallen in to water. Since the defects were occurred within the warranty period the Opposite party should have provided the service to him. Hence the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party. 2. Opposite party filed version and contended that the mobile phone set became defective due to water and therefore the company is not liable for damages caused due to water as per the warranty. The Nokia company is the manufacturer of the mobile phone and they are not made a party. Hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3. Complainant produced Ext.A1 the purchase bill of the Mobile Phone and Ext.A2, the service job sheet issued by opposite party stating the reason for the rejection of service. For Opposite party the Proprietor, Sathar filed affidavit. Both sides were heard and the documents perused. 4. It is a fact that the Mobile Phone having a warranty of 6 months became defective within 5 months from the date of purchase. To avoid the after sales service the Opposite party had taken a contention that the mobile is water logged. Except Ext.A2 the service job sheet produced by the complainant there is nothing to show that the mobile phone is damaged due to water. The report of the technicians who attended the defects of the phone is not seen produced to substantiate the contention of opposite party. Hence we find deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Therefore we direct the opposite party to take back the mobile phone and refund Rs.2100/- to the complainant. Since the complainant had used the mobile phone for 5 months Rs.500/- is reduced as depreciation. The opposite party had a case that he is only a dealer and the manufacturer of the mobile set is not a party to the proceedings. If so he can recover the said amount of Rs.2100/- from the manufacturer through appropriate proceedings. No order as to costs. Time for compliance 30 days from the date of copy of order. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. 22-3-08 Cash receipt A2. Service Job Sheet. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT