1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 20.11.2015 he purchased one Samsung Mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. Galaxy J5 IMEI No. 352672073872202 and paid Rs. 12,400/- vide invoice no. 802 dated 20.11.2015 alongwith warranty certificate.  It is alleged that seven days after its purchase, the said mobile handset has remained as automatic hang off, camera slow and switch buttons are not working and became unused and he did not get its utility for which he approached the O.P.No.1 who after verifying the mobile handset disclosed his inability to rectify the defects and said that the mobile handset suffers from some inherent manufacturing defects and advised to contact O.P.No. 2 for replacement, thus showing the 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. 30,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs to him.
    
2. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1 after receipt the notice of this Fora, appeared and filed his counter admitting the purchase of the alleged mobile handset by the Complainant from his shop, but denying his liability stated that on approach to him by the Complainant regarding defects, he collected the said mobile and sent to O.P.No.2 for its rectification and after proper repair, he handed over the mobile handset to the Complainant, thereafter the Complainant never visit to his shop for further complaint regarding defects in the alleged handset, thus denying his 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. 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.  It is seen that since the day of filing of the present case, the Complainant has also not come to this Forum for a single day to prove his allegations, as such at the time of hearing, we lost opportunities to come to know that whether any defects exist in the alleged mobile or not, whereas the O.Ps have strictly challenged the versions of the Complainant.  Considering the circumstances and keeping in view of natural justice, we provided several opportunities to the Complainant for his submissions and filing of documents. But since the Complainant is absent on repeated calls, we heard only from the O.Ps.  Perused the documents and materials available in the record.
    
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. Galaxy J5 IMEI No. 352672073872202 on payment of Rs. 12,400/- vide invoice no. 802 dated 20.11.2015 alongwith warranty certificate and the Complainant has filed document to that effect.  It is alleged by the Complainant that seven days after its purchase, the said mobile handset has remained as automatic hang off, camera slow and switch buttons are not working and became unused and he did not get its utility for which he approached the O.P.No.1 who after verifying the mobile handset disclosed his inability to rectify the defects and said that the mobile handset suffers from some inherent manufacturing defects and advised to contact O.P.No. 2 for replacement, but to prove his submissions, the Complainant has not filed any single documents to that effect.  Whereas the O.Ps. have strictly challenged the versions of the Complainant.  Since the Complainant did not participated at the time of hearing, inspite of several opportunities were given to him keeping in view of natural justice, we lost opportunities to come to a conclusion that whether the alleged mobile handset was having actual defects for which it needs to be replaced.  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 submission of O.P.No.1 is never challenged by the Complainant and became unrebuttal.
    
6. Further, at the time of hearing, the Complainant is absent on repeated calls, for which we lost opportunities to come to know that whether the submissions of the O.Ps. contain any truth or not, as such the contentions of the O.Ps. were taken into consideration.  The allegations of the Complainant regarding the defects in the alleged mobile handset was challenged by the O.Ps on their part, whereas, the Complainant did not participate in the hearing nor filed any congent evidence like expert opinion report from his side, as such the versions of O.Ps cannot be disbelieved, so also the absence of the Complainant makes the contentions of O.Ps. strong and vital. In this regard, we have fortified with the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Anuj Agarwal Vrs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2006(1) CPR 109, wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that “there is no illegality or jurisdictional error where an order is passed on written version and documents of O.P. unchallenged by the Complainant.” 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.  No order as to costs.  Parties to bear their own costs.

          Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 10^th day of April, 2018.

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.