1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 29.09.2015 he purchased one Samsung Mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. I 200 having IMEI No. 353508076428320 and paid Rs. 8,400/- vide invoice no. 75 dated 29.09.2015 alongwith warranty certificate.  It is alleged that ten months after its purchase, the said mobile handset showed display problems for which he approached the O.P.No.2 about the defects and registered the same vide bill no. 47 dated 21.07.2016, who failed to set right the mobile, as such complainant could not get its utility.It is alleged that on time and again approach to the O.P. No. 2, who disclosed his inability to rectify the defects stating that the alleged mobile is having inherent 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 and to pay Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.
    
2. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1 & 2 though received the notice of this Fora, did not choose to appear in this case nor also filed their counter nor participated in the hearing also, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them.
    
3. The O.P. No. 3 is represented through their Ld. Counsel, who appeared  and filed their counter admitting the purchase of alleged handset by the Complainant but denied all other facts contending that since the complainant has not filed any single evidence either towards purchase of the alleged mobile handset or any job sheet towards the repaired carried out by the O.P. No.2, as such the complainant is not a consumer under the O.P. No. 3 and has no locus standi to proceed with the case, thus showing their no liability, he prayed to dismiss the case against O.P. No. 3.
    
3. It is seen from the record that inspite of several opportunities given to Complainant to produce the document towards purchase of alleged mobile handset or any job sheet towards repair of the alleged mobile handset, but miserably failed to produce before us.  Further it is seen that the complainant though have availed opportunities, did not participate in the hearing also, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from him and finding no other way, we heard from the A/R for O.P. No. 3 only at length.  Perused the case record.
    
3. In the instant case, it is revealed from the record that several opportunities have given to the complainant since years to prove himself as a consumer under the O.Ps, but though availing such opportunities, the complainant could not able to prove himself as a consumer by producing documentary evidences like retail bill / invoice / challan or any document towards purchase of the alleged mobile handset, hence the plea of A/R for O.P. No. 3 regarding the fact that the complainant is a not a consumer under them, was taken into consideration.
   
   From the above observation and submissions of O.P No.3, it is prima facie established that complainant is not being a consumer under the O.Ps, have filed the present case only to get some undue gains from the O.Ps. and have played 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 January, 2020. 

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.