1. The fact of the case of complainant is that on 01.05.2017 she purchased one OPPO Mobile bearing model no. OPPO-A37 vide IMEI No. 864029038199059 and 864029038199042 from the O.P.No.1 vide invoice no. 671 dated 01.05.2017 and paid Rs. 10,000/- and received warranty certificate.  It is alleged that after 2 month, she found several defects like automatic hang-up, immediate discharge of battery, hearing problem and typing defects for which she deposited  the said Mobile with  O.P.No.1, in reply the Op.No.1 send the Mobile on many occasion to the authorized service center for its repair and returned the mobile by saying that the handset is repaired, but after a day or two it showed its previous defects.  And on contact to O.P. No.1 who disclosed that handset suffers from manufacturing defects. Thus showing the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, she filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps either to deliver a new defect free handset or refund the cost of the mobile handset with 18% interest and to pay Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.   
    
2. The O.P. No. 1 appeared in this case and filed his counter admitting the sale of alleged mobile handset to the complainant and also admitted the repairs carried out by him.  It is contend that being a small shop owner, he is getting commission from the dealer.  Further it is contended that the O.P.No.2, being the manufacturer, is solely responsible for any manufacture defect, if any occurs and showing his no liability, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.
    
3. The notice send to O.P.No.2 has returned back as unserved with postal remark “left”, for which the complainant was directed to file fresh and proper step against the  O.P. No.2, but inspite of repeated opportunities that is to say 27 number of adjournments given to the complainant keeping in view of natural justice, the complainant did not choose to file any proper step against the Op.No.2, the manufacturer.
    
4. As per our order no. 7 dated 17.01.2018, it is also observed that though the O.P.No.2 is absent, the complainant was also directed to handover the alleged Mobile to the O.P.No.1 for its repair, but without complying the direction of Hon’ble Forum, the complainant kept silent for about 1 and ½ year. Hence we think the complainant does not have any interest to proceed with the case, as such we decided to dismiss the present case for default. Hence this order.

                                                                                     ORDER      

The complaint petition is herewith dismissed for default for not taking any proper steps.
        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 8^th day of July, 2019.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.