1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 24.05.2017 he purchased one Samsung Mobile handset of O.P.No.1 through online platform bearing model no. Samsung J7 vide order no. 300007490 dated 24.05.2017 vide SKU No. SM-A710FZKF for Rs. 17,517/-.  It is alleged that after its use for a few days, the mobile handset showed some defects like touch screen problem, battery overheating for which he approached the O.P.No.1 at their customer care about the defects but did not get any result he lodged a complaint on online and also contacted with the O.P. No.2 but did not get any favourable response, 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 replace the same model defect free handset or to refund the cost of the mobile handset and to pay Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.
    
2. The O.P. No. 1 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.2 have intimated them regarding any defect, as such showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
3. The O.P. No. 2 though received the notice, but did not choose to appear in this case nor filed his counter versions nor also participated in the hearing.
    
4. Complainant has filed the invoice vide order no. 300007490 and no other parties to the present disputes have filed any documents.
    
5. At the time of hearing, the A/R for O.P. No. 1 argued that the complainant is not consumer under the O.P. as the alleged product was purchased by on Biren Nayak, Anand Nagar, Mali Street, Ankuli, Near Pachimeswar Temple, Berhampur, where the present case is filed by one Laxmi Narayana Nayak who is a stranger to this litigation and he has not been authorised by Biren Nayak, as such the complainant is not   a consumer as pr the Act, 1986 and praying for dismiss of the case.  Whereas, the complainant is present before us and admitted that the alleged product was purchased by Biren Nayak and he has not been authorized by him to file and proceed with the case. On close verification of record and document, it is also well established that the invoiced was raised in favour of one Biren Nayak, Anand Nagar, Mali Street, Ankuli, Near Pachimeswar Temple, Berhampur – 760010, whereas the complaint petition is filed by one Laxmi Narayan Nayak, S/o Late Panchanan Nayak, At : ICICI Bank, Main Road, P.O./P.S./Dist. Malkangiri.We ascertained from the record that the complainant is not a consumer as per provision of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, 1986 and has not availed any service from the O.P.1, as such there is no question of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of O.Ps.We think complainant has not with clean hands.Hence, this order.

ORDER

As per the above observation, we think complainant has not come with clean hands, hence the present case is dismissed against the O.Ps for the ground of maintainability alone.Parties to bear own costs.Accordingly, case is disposed off.

Pronounced in the open Form on this the 29^th day of November, 2019,

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.