Heard the complainant who is in person and counsel for the opposite party. The grievance of the complainant is that mobile set of Nokia company he had purchased developed defect within the warranty period and set was given for repair to opposite party who is an authorized servicing agency of the manufacturer. But, the opposite party did not do effective repair and stated to had told to him that it cannot be repaired and thereby alleging deficiency in the service of opposite party has filed this complaint.<br /> The learned counsel representing the opposite party has conceded that the mobile set given by this complainant for repair to opposite party cannot be repaired and therefore was offered to the complainant to take back, but he has not collected it. With this, we do not find any cause of action against the opposite party and we find no merit in the allegation of the complainant about deficiency in the service against opposite party when he has categorically stated that mobile set cannot be repaired. This being the position, the complainant may at be liberty to proceed against the dealer or manufacturer for having sold him the defective mobile set. With this the complainant seeks permission to withdraw the complainant with liberty to file fresh complaint against the dealer or manufacturer. Hence, the complaint is dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to file fresh complaint against the dealer or against the manufacturer as the case may be.<br /> <br /> <br />