By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> The complaint in brief is as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant had purchased a NOKIA-3310 Mobile Phone hand set from the 1st Opposite Party on 26.6.2004, for a sum of Rs.3,850/-. The mobile phone was in working condition for the first <br /> Contd.......2)<br /> .2.<br /> few months. But by October the mobile phone began to show dim shade on the screen and calls were not going out. The complainant approached 1st Opposite Party and entrusted the phone for repair. The 1st Opposite Party had repaired the phone but demanded Rs.350/- as service charge. Since the phone became defunct during the warranty period and since the warranty card assure the free replacement of any parts or for any service during the warranty period, the complainant refused to pay the service without any charge. Even after the repair, the mobile phone became defective and dead within days. The complainant again approached the 1st Opposite Party for repairing the set. But the 1st Opposite Party behaved harshly and stated that they would repair the set only on payment. The complainant also sent a lawyer notice to the 1st Opposite Party dated,1.1.05. Even then the 1st Opposite Party has not taken any step to redress the grivences of the complainant. So, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of tfew months. But he Opposite Parties and the complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.3,850/- the price of the faulty handset to the complainant or replacing the faulty handset with a new one of the same make and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and other costs and reliefs.<br /> <br /> 2. The 1st Opposite Party has appeared and filed version. For the 2nd Opposite Party , Vakalath has been filed but no version filed. The 1st Opposite Party in the version admitted the sale of mobile phone handset No.3310. The Opposite Party has also issued a limited warranty card to the <br /> complainant. The terms and conditions of the warranty card replacement were categorically mentioned in the warranty card. As per the terms of warranty the company is not responsible for the repair or replacement of the instrument falling in 'food or liquid'. The 1st Opposite Party states that the handset of the complainant happened to fell down in water and thereafter the system was disturbed. But this fact was not disclosed by the complainant. The 2nd Opposite Party examined the set through the company technician who opined that the handset become defective as a result of falling in water. The Opposite Parties are not responsible for the defect of the phone as it is not a manufacturing defect. <br /> Contd..2)<br /> .3.<br /> The defects is only because of the careless and reckless handling of the set by the complainant. So the <br /> Opposite Parties prays for an order dismissing the complaint and allowing the Opposite Parties the compensatory cost.<br /> <br /> 3. The matters in dispute are as follows:<br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief.<br /> <br /> 4. Proof affidavit was filed by the complainant. Ext. A1 to A6 were marked, MO 1 was admitted as evidence on the side of the complainant. On the side of 1st Opposite Party only version was filed. And for 2nd Opposite Parties no version filed, only vakalath was filed.<br /> <br /> 5. Point No.1: The Opposite Party's contention is that the mobile phone become defunct due to careless handling and that it had fallen in to water. But they have not adduced any evidence to that effect. They could have examined the technician who attended the hand set before the forum. In this <br /> case, only a version was filed denying the allegations of the complainants. 1st Opposite Party states that 2nd Opposite Party is not a necessary party in the case since the complaint is with respect to the denial of service and not with respect to any manufacturing defects. 1st Opposite Party has no contension that the Mobile phone became defective after warranty period. Their only contention is that the defect is due to mis handling. This is not proved. So the point No. 1 is found against the 1st Opposite Party. <br /> <br /> 6. Point No.2: As point No.1 is found against the Opposite Parties. The complainant is entitled to get relief. The complaint had been filed on 27-11-05. The defective mobile phone is kept with the forum. Since a period of 3 years has lapsed after filing the case, there is no meaning in directing<br /> Contd....4)<br /> .4.<br /> the Opposite Parties to repair the phone. So, the Opposite Parties are directed to replace the phone or to pay an amount of Rs.3850/- to the complainants. The defective mobile phone, produced is to be taken back by the 2nd opposite party.<br /> <br /> Hence, the Opposite Parties are liable jointly and severally to replace the mobile phone with a new one or to pay an amount of Rs.3,850/- (Rupees three thousand eight hundred and fifty only) to the complainant. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the complainant as compensation and cost within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The complainant is entitled to execute this order as per law.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open Forum on 28th March, 2008.