1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 03.06.2017 06.09.2017 he purchased one Samsung Mobile bearing model no. J5 Prime 4G (32GB) barcode No. 358213/08/095/392/7 and 358214/08/095/392/6 from the O.P.No.1 vide invoice no. 14697 and received warranty certificate.  It is alleged that after 11 month, the handset became defective and the switched off and after it charged. It is alleged that while on contact with O.P. No. 1 who suggested to lodge complaint with O.P. No.2 but the O.P. no. 2 closed his service center on all occasion, thus showing deficiency in service, he filed this case with a prayer to refund the costs of alleged handset and Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.

2. O.P. No.1, though received the notice from the Fora, did not choose to appear in this case, nor filed his counter version nor participated in the hearing also.

3. Notice sent to O.P. No.2 through Regd. Post vide RL No. RO801087835IN returned unserved with postal remark as” Locking”.  Inspite of repeated opportunities, complainant did not take any steps to file fresh step against the O.P. No.2.

4. O.P. No.3 appeared through their Ld. Counsel who filed written version admitting the sale of alleged product but denied all other facts contending 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 nor the complainant or the O.P. No.1 intimated them regarding any defect, as such showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
5. A/R for O.P.No.3 filed certain verdicts of Higher Forums in support of their submissions, whereas complainant did not choose to file any supportive documents.  At the time of hearing, only the A/R for O.P. No.3 is present and no other parties are present on repeated calls, hence heard from the A/R for O.P.No. 3 only.  Perused the documents and materials available in the record.
    
6. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding sale of alleged mobile handset to the complainant bearing model no. J5 Prime 4G (32GB) vide IMEI No. 358213/08/095/392/7 and 358214/08/095/392/6 vide invoice no. 14697 issued by O.P. No. 1.  The allegations of complainant is that 11 months after of its  purchase, the alleged handset became defective and on approach to O.P. No.1 who suggested to lodge complaint with the O.P. No.2 and on many occasions, complainant found the service center running by O.P. No. 2 is locked, thus filed this case.  Whereas, during hearing, the specific contentions of O.P. No.3 the defects occurred in the alleged handset after using 11 months and till 11 months of its purchase, no defects occurred in the alleged handset and complainant has not specifically mentioned the types of defectiveness in the alleged mobile handset, and since no complaint is lodged regarding any defects during this 11 months, hence there is no manufacturing defects in the alleged handset and the same can be repaired under warranty, thus praying for dismiss the case.
    
7. Since the complainant and the O.P. No. 1 & 2 did not appear during the hearing in spite of repeated opportunities provide to them keeping in view of natural justice, to make clarify what type of defects occurred in the alleged mobile, it is quite impossible at this stage to ascertain the actual defects in the alleged mobile handset. Hence we feel the alleged mobile handset does not have any manufacturing defects in it, which may require only service under warranty, if any defects occurred during warranty period.  
    
8. Further the contentions of O.P. No. 3 remained unchallenged by the complainant and no contradictions were made out by him.  In this connection, we have fortified with the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Anuj Agarwal Vrs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein Honble National Commission has held that “There is no illegality or jurisdictional error where an order is passed on written version and document of OP unchallenged by the complainant.”
    
9. Considering the above discussions, we feel the complainant has not come with proper evidence to prove his submissions and we do not think that the present case is a fit case for proceeding.  As such, 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.  No order as to costs.  Parties to bear their own costs.

            Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 19^th day November, 2020.  Issue free copies to the parties concerned.