The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Appsdaily Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Represented through its Chairman & or M.D & or G.M, Andheri (E), Mumbai, O.P No.2 is the Proprietor/ Manager, Sprimon Technologies Hub, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar and O.P No.3 is the Branch Manager, AppsDaily Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Balasore Branch Office, Balasore.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant purchased      a new Sony Xperia E4 (Model No.-Sony E 2115) vide IMEI No.358138060513542 from Mayur Electronics, Balasore on 20.04.2015 and insured the said mobile under the O.Ps on the same day covering twelve months from the date of insurance, where the O.Ps allotted intimation ID No.AD_D_170316_3005158 to the Complainant. The said mobile became fluid damage accidentally, thus the Complainant approached O.P No.3 and on examination, the O.P No.3 found the set was totally damaged and beyond repair. As per advice of O.P No.3, the Complainant handed over the handset to O.P No.3 along with Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred) only and necessary documents on 22.03.2016 for settlement of insurance claim, where the O.P No.3 can settle the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy in consultation with O.P No.1 and 2. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the O.Ps in several occasions personally and on phone, but no satisfactory reply received yet though more than 6 months have already been elapsed. Thus, the Complainant served legal notice to the O.Ps on 13.10.2016, out of which the O.P No.1 received the notice on 20.10.2016, notice to O.P No.2 is returned without service and O.P No.3 refused to receive such notice and O.P No.1 remained silent even after receipt of said legal notice. Negligence to provide service by the O.Ps causing irreparable loss and mental agony to the Complainant. Cause of action arose on 22.03.2016 and on 21.11.2016. The Complainant has prayed for refund of cost of mobile, insurance cost, invoice cost along with compensation for mental agony and irreparable loss.      

                    3. Though sufficient opportunities are given to O.P No.1 for appearance, but he did not appear in this case. So, the O.P No.1 is set ex-parte.

                    4. Though sufficient opportunities are given to the Complainant to file fresh steps against O.P No.2 and 3, but he did not file fresh steps against O.P No.2 and 3. So, this case against O.P No.2 and 3 is dismissed.

                    5. In order to substantiate his claim, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that after purchase of the mobile handset, it became fluid damage accidentally, thus the Complainant approached O.P No.3 and on examination, the O.P No.3 found the set was totally damaged and beyond repair. So, the Complainant handed over the said handset to O.P No.3 along with Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred) only and necessary documents for settlement of insurance claim. But, the claim was not settled by the O.Ps till yet. So, when the Complainant did not get any satisfactory reply from the O.Ps after several approaches, he came to this Forum praying for refund of cost of the mobile, insurance cost, invoice cost along with compensation.  As mentioned earlier, the O.P No.1 was set ex-parte and the case against O.P No.2 and 3 was dismissed due to non-taking of fresh steps by the Complainant against them. So, it shows that the allegation of the Complainant against O.P No.2 and 3 is not substantial due to non-taking of steps against them. So, the case against them is dismissed. Regarding O.P No.1, he has no direct role in this respect. Furthermore, the pleading shows that the O.P No.1 is represented through its Chairman and or M.D and or G.M. So, it is also not clear that whether O.P No.1 is represented by one person or three separate persons. But, notices have been issued to three of them in this case. 

                    6. However, in such ambiguous circumstances, after going through all the materials available in the case record, I am in the opinion that the Complainant has not come to this Forum in clean hand to adjudicate his dispute, for which he is not entitled to get any benefit as prayed for and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-   

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on ex-parte against O.P No.1, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost.  

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 12th day of February, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.