1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 15.09.2015 he purchased one Samsung Mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. Galaxy A8 SM A 800H, IMEI No. 353004070548487/01 and paid Rs. 32,000/- vide invoice no. 007 dated 15.09.2015 alongwith warranty certificate.  It is alleged that 7 days after its purchase, the said mobile handset showed some defects and being a businessman he suffered unbearable hardship and did not get its utility.  Further it is alleged that on 24.09.2015 he approached the O.P.No.1 about the defects, who after keeping the said mobile for about 5 days returned the handset saying that the mobile was repaired, but after using one or two hours, the said mobile showed the previous defects.  That on further 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 replace the same model defect free handset or to refund the cost of the mobile handset with 24% interest 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, appeared in this case, filed his counter version admitting the sale of alleged handset to the Complainant has contended that as per approach of Complainant, he repaired the handset through O.P.No.2 and returned the mobile in proper working condition.  Further he contended that after repair of the alleged handset, the Complainant never visited to his shop for claiming further defects.  Thus showing his no liability, he prayed to dismiss the case against 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 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 the retail invoice vide no. 007 dated 15.09.2015 and service job sheet vide no. 000 01 dated 10.10.2017 and no other parties to the present disputes have filed any documents.
    
5. It is seen from the record, that the Complainant has filed a petition on 28.02.2018 for adding the authorized service center of O.P. No.2 i.e. M/s Mobile World as necessary party, which was allowed.  But in spite of several opportunities and adjournments given to the Complainant keeping in view of natural justice, he did not choose to file any proper steps for adding party.  During hearing, the Complainant is absent on repeated calls, as such we lost every 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.
    
6. 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. Galaxy A8 SM A 800H, IMEI No. 353004070548487/01 with a monetary consideration of Rs. 32,000/- vide invoice no. 007 dated 15.09.2015 and obtained warranty certificate and the Complainant has filed document to that effect.  It is alleged that 7 days after its purchase, the said mobile handset showed some defects and being a businessman he did not get its proper utility.  Complainant filed one job sheet vide no. 01 dated 10.10.2017 to prove his case.  Whereas the A/R for O.P.No.2 argued that the Complainant is ousted himself from the ambit of consumer as he has purchased the alleged mobile handset only for his business purpose which was also admitted in the complaint petition filed by the Complainant.  We have gone through the complaint petition as well as the submissions of the A/R for O.P.No.2 and ascertained that the alleged mobile was using only for the business purpose of the Complainant, as such the present dispute is not coming under the purview of consumer dispute. 
    
7. Further the A/R for O.P. No.2 has argued that the job sheet dated 10.10.2017 which was filed by the Complainant does not revealed the defects of the alleged handset which occurred within warranty period of one year from the date of purchase, as such the service was done on paid service basis.  We have carefully gone through the job sheet vide no. 000 01 dated 10.10.2017 issued by one M/s Mobile World which does not revealed that the mobile was under warranty, as such we feel the alleged mobile was handed over to M/s Mobile World on 10.10.2017 for availing after warranty service, and also does not disclose about any previous defects if occurred in the alleged mobile during the warranty period, hence the plea of Complainant regarding to the effect that he has handed over the mobile for service under warranty, is baseless. 
    
8. Further it is alleged after using 7 days, defects were found in the alleged handset, as such the complainant made further complaint to the O.P. No. 1.  Whereas the O.P. No. 1 strictly challenged the versions of Complainant contending that the Complainant never visited to his shop for further complaint.  We have carefully gone through the documents filed by the Complainant.  It is also ascertained that the Complainant has not filed any single document or evidence to prove his submissions, therefore, without any cogent evidence the plea of Complainant will not do.   Further non presence of the authorized service center i.e. M/s Mobile World, we lost every opportunities to come to know whether the alleged mobile handset is having manufacturing defects.
    
9. To prove his submissions, except retail invoice and job sheet dated 10.10.2017 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.  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 and remained unchallenged from the side of Complainant, and became unrebuttal. 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 cost.

             Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 3^rd day of September, 2018.

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.