DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 7th day of March, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA.A., MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER Date of filing: 29.09.2023.
CC/258/2023
Vaisakh C.N, 32 year, - Complainant
Bindu Bhavan, Chunangad P.O,
Ottappalam, Palakkad,
679 511.
(Party-In-Person)
Vs
CEO, OLA electric Technologies Pvt. Ltd, -Opposite Party
2, Hosur Road, Koramangala,
Bangaluru-560 095.
ORDER
BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant.
This complaint is about the defective fork arm of the electric scooter manufactured and sold by the opposite party to the father of the complainant. According to the complainant, the old fork arm design of Ola electric scooter was faulty causing fork arm break which can cause serious injuries to the riders. Recognising the severity of issue, the opposite party company introduced an upgraded fork arm design and announced that they would offer free upgradation to affected customers. Accordingly, the opposite party company scheduled the fork arm upgrade of the scooter owned by the complainant’s father in May, 2023. But the opposite party failed to undertake the upgrade, despite confirming the schedule for upgrade. Therefore, the complainant is riding the scooter in a state of constant fear of a potential accident. Hence this complaint is filed seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for mental trauma, negligence of customer concerns & safety, deficiency in service etc apart from legal expenses.
2. Notice was served to the opposite party. They did not enter appearance. Hence their name was called in open court and set ex-parte.
3. Since the beginning of the proceedings, the complainant had been continuously absent for six consecutive posting. He did not file proof affidavit or mark any document as evidence. Hence, the case was taken for orders based on merits.
4. As per Section 38(6) of the consumer Protection Act, 2019, “every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record”.
5. As the complainant has not filed proof affidavit or adduced any evidence to prove his pleadings, this Commission is not in a position to examine the merits of the case.
6. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. The complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.
Pronounced in open court on this the 7th day of March, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON V., PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
