BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P.V.JAYARAJAN                                           :  PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                                     : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU V.R                                                          : MEMBER

C.C. No. 327/2023      (Filed on 06.07.2023)

ORDER DATED: 30.07.2024

Complainant:

Jorjie George, Berach, 8 B-1, Sreedhanya Lakewoods, Akkulam, Thiruvananthapuram-695 583.

        (By Advs. Dinesh Sajan K. & Bimal V.S.)                               

Opposite parties:

1. KTM India, Pune-Mumbai Road, Akurdi, Pune-411 035, Maharashtra, India represented by its CEO, Mr. Stefan Pierer.

2. M/s Popular KTM, Building No. 2/262-Q, Choornikkara Grama Panchayath, Ernakulam North, Muttom, NH 47, Aluva, Kerala-683 503 represented by its owner Mr. Saju Thomas. 

3. Sidhique, Popular KTM, Building No. 2/262-Q, Choornikkara Grama Panchayath, Ernakulam North, Muttom-NH 47, Aluva, Kerala-683 503.

ORDER

SRI. P. V. JAYARAJAN:  PRESIDENT

          This complaint is filed under Sec. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.  After hearing the matter this Commission passed an order as follows:

This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties.  Notice issued to opposite parties 1 & 3 returned with the endorsement ‘insufficient address and addressee left’.  Notice issued to 2^nd opposite party returned with the endorsement ‘intimation served on 10.08.2023’.  As the 2^nd opposite party failed to appear before this Commission and file written version the 2^nd opposite party was called absent and set ex-parte on 25.09.2023.  Subsequently the complainant was directed to take steps against the opposite parties 1 & 3.  When the case came up for consideration today, the complainant was represented and filed a memo stating that the complainant is not pressing this complaint.  The memo filed on behalf of the complainant is accepted and recorded.  In view of the memo filed by the complainant, we find that this is a fit case to be dismissed as not pressed.   

In the result, the complaint is dismissed as not pressed.  There will be no order as to cost. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 30^th day of July 2024.                 

              Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN                : PRESIDENT 

               Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR            : MEMBER  

             Sd/-

                                                     VIJU V.R                          : MEMBER

jb