1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 09.02.2015 he purchased one Samsung Mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. S DOU-S, IMEI No. 355008/06/106837/9 & 355009/06/106837/7 and paid Rs. 7,400/- vide invoice no. 757 dated 09.02.2015 alongwith warranty certificate.  It is alleged that 6 months after its purchase, the said mobile handset showed some defects and he did not get its utility.  Further it is alleged in the month of August, 2015 he approached the O.P.No.1 who after keeping the said mobile for about 20 days returned the handset with a false belief that the mobile was repaired, but after some days, the said mobile showed the previous defect alongwith some additional defects.That on approach to O.P.No.1 regarding the defects, the O.P.No.1 disclosed that the alleged mobile is having manufacturing defect, thus alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of the mobile handset with 18% interest and to pay Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs to him.
    
2. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1 after receiving the notice of this Fora, though appeared in this case, did not choose to the counter / written version, but however, participated in the hearing.
    
3. The O.P. No. 2 is represented through their Ld. Counsel, who appeared in this case, filed their counter in shape of written version admitting the purchase of alleged mobile handset by the Complainant but denied all other facts contending that they have “Principal to Principal” relation with their channel partners and  also contended that the alleged handset is a well established product in the market over a period of years and all those products are put through stringent control system, quality checks by the quality department before dispatch to the market.  Further they contended that the Complainant has not produced any expert opinion report to prove his allegation and also the defects in the said mobile are not in their knowledge, so also neither the Complainant nor the O.P.No.1 have intimated them regarding any defect, as such showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
4. Complainant has filed only the retail invoice and no other parties to the present disputes have filed any documents. It is seen from the record, that the Complainant has not present before this Fora for a single day since the day of filing of this case.  During the hearing, the Complainant is absent on repeated calls, as such we lost opportunities to hear from him.  Heard from the O.P. No. 1 and A/R for O.P. No. 2 at length.  Perused the documents and materials available in the record.
    
5. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding purchase of the alleged mobile handset by the Complainant from the O.P.No.1 vide model no. S DOU-S, IMEI No. 355008/06/106837/9 & 355009/06/106837/7 and paid Rs. 7,400/- vide invoice no. 757 dated 09.02.2015 alongwith warranty certificate and the Complainant has filed document to that effect.  It is alleged by the Complainant that 6 months after its purchase, the said mobile handset showed some defects and he did not get its utility.  Further it is alleged in the month of August, 2015 he approached the O.P.No.1 who after keeping the said mobile for about 20 days returned the handset with a false belief that the mobile was repaired, but after some days, the said mobile showed the previous defect alongwith some additional defects and that on approach to the O.P.No.1 regarding the defects, the O.P.No.1 disclosed that the alleged mobile is having manufacturing defect.  To prove his submissions, except retail invoice Complainant has not filed any other documents, whereas the A/R for O.P.No.2 has filed certain verdicts of the Higher Commissions.  It is seen that since the day of filing of the present case, the Complainant has also not come to this Forum for a single day to prove his allegations, as such at the time of hearing, we lost opportunities to come to a conclusion that whether any defects exists in the alleged mobile or not, whereas the O.Ps have strictly challenged the versions of the Complainant.Considering the circumstances and keeping in view of natural justice, we provided several opportunities to the Complainant for his submissions and filing of documents to ascertain whether the alleged mobile handset was having actual defects for which it needs to be replaced or cost of mobile can be granted.  Further it is observed as per the version of O.P. No. 1 that after receiving the complaint from the Complainant, the O.P. No. 1 has provided his better service by sending the alleged handset to the O.P.No.2 and after proper repair, he returned the same to the Complainant and Complainant has never come to his shop for making further complaints.  The submissions of O.P.No.1 is also corroborated by the O.P.No.2.  The submission of O.P.No.1 is never challenged by the Complainant and became unrebuttal. 
    
6. Further, at the time of hearing, the Complainant is absent on repeated calls, for which we lost opportunities to come to know that whether the submissions of the O.Ps. contain any truth or not, as such the contentions of the O.Ps. were taken into consideration.  The allegations of the Complainant regarding the defects in the alleged mobile handset was challenged by the O.Ps on their part, whereas, the Complainant did not participate in the hearing nor filed any cogent evidence like expert opinion report from his side, as such the versions of O.Ps cannot be disbelieved, so also the absence of the Complainant makes the contentions of O.Ps. strong and vital. In this regard, we have come across the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Anuj Agarwal Vrs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2006(1) CPR 109, wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that “there is no illegality or jurisdictional error where an order is passed on written version and documents of O.P. unchallenged by the Complainant.” From the above observation and submissions of O.Ps., it is prima facie established that only to get some undue gains from the O.Ps., the Complainant has tried to play hide and seek game with them.We feel, the complainant has not come with a clean hand, as such did not produce any cogent evidence before us.Hence, we do not think that the present case is a fit case for proceeding.Hence we dismiss the case having no merits.

                                                                                              ORDER

Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, the present case is dismissed against the O.Ps having no merit.  Parties to bear their own costs.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 2^nd day of May, 2018.

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.