1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 25.09.2017 he purchased one Samsung Mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. J7, IMEI No. 358674/08/204467/8 & 358674/08/204467/5 and paid Rs. 20,900/- vide invoice no. 76 dated 25.09.2017 alongwith warranty certificate.  It is alleged that 3 months after its use, the mobile handset showed some defects like overheat problem in a little charge of battery and he could not get its utility, for which he approached the O.P.No.1 about the defects, who after keeping the said mobile for about one month returned the handset saying that the mobile was repaired, but after using for about 2 months, the mobile handset showed the previous defects and complainant handed over the same to the O.P. No.1, who kept the mobile for another one month and returned the same being repaired.That on further approach to O.P.No.1 regarding the defects, and finding further audio problems in the mobile handset, suffering from mental agony and financial loss, 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 costs of alleged product and to pay Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.
    
2. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1 after receiving the notice of this Fora, did not choose to appear in this case, nor filed his counter version nor also participated in the hearing, as such, we lost every opportunities to hear from him.
    
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 complainant has never submitted the alleged mobile handset in any of their service center and also not submitted any expert opinion report regarding the defects.  Further contended that complainant never approached them regarding any defects, thus showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
4. Parties have curtained documents in support of their submissions. Perused the case records and material documents available therein.  
    
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 bearing model no. J7, IMEI No. 358674/08/204467/8 & 358674/08/204467/5 and paid Rs. 20,900/- vide invoice no. 76 dated 25.09.2017 alongwith warranty certificate.  It is alleged that 3 months after its use, the mobile handset showed some defects like overheat problem in a little charge of battery and he could not get its utility, for which he approached the O.P.No.1 about the defects, who after keeping the said mobile for about one month returned the handset saying that the mobile was repaired, but after using for about 2 months, the mobile handset showed the previous defects and complainant handed over the same to the O.P. No.1, who kept the mobile for another one month and returned the same being repaired.  That on further approach to O.P.No.1 regarding the defects, and finding further audio problems in the mobile handset.  Whereas the A/R for O.P.No.2 argued that the Complainant has not proved his allegations by producing documentary evidence to that effect, as such the allege product has no defective till the date of filing of the present case and also the complainant has produced the alleged product before the Fora. 
    
6. It is observed that complainant is absent since the day of filing of the case and also absent, during hearing, on repeated calls, as such we lost every opportunities regarding the defectiveness in the alleged product, whereas the A/R for O.P. No. 2 challenged versions of the complainant and also filed catena of decisions of Higher Forums in support of their submissions. 
    
7. 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 in support of their contentions.  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.  The submission of A/R for O.P.No.2 is never challenged by the Complainant and became unrebuttal. 
   
   From the above observation and submissions of O.P., 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 cost.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of December, 2020. 

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.