DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB          : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Tuesday the 25^th  day of April 2023

C.C.82/2022

Complainant

R.K. Moitheen Koya,

            S/O. Ammedkutty,

            R.K.House,

            Naduvannur P.O, Naduvannur (Via),

            Kozhikode -673 614.

Opposite Party

          Indostar Capital Finance Ltd.,

          R.K.Swamy Centre, 2^nd Floor,

          Block – B, Door No.3/147,

          Pathari Road, Thousand Lights,

          Chennai – 600 006.

ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT 

      This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.  The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

      The complainant had availed a loan from the opposite party by hypothecating his bus. The Complainant is alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on part of the opposite party.  The prayer in the complaint is to direct the opposite party to receive the agreed amount of Rs. 6,58,896/- and issue no objection certificate to the complainant and to return the blank signed cheque leaves. 

3. The opposite party was set ex-parte.

4. The points that arise for determination in this case are :

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, as alleged?
2. Reliefs and costs.

5. Point No.1 – The opposite party was set as ex-parte. The case was posted for evidence of the complainant several times. But the complainant also remained absent and did not file affidavit or adduce any evidence.  The fact that the opposite party was set ex-parte does not automatically entitles the complainant to get the relief sought for.  It is for the complainant to prove the allegations in the complaint by adducing proper evidence. But the complainant in this case has utterly failed to prove his case. No deficiency of service or unfair trade practice as alleged is proved against the opposite party.

6. Point No.2:  In view of the finding on the above point, the complainant is not entitled to get the relief sought for and the complaint is only to be dismissed. 

In the result, CC 82/2022 is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Commission on this the 25^rd day of April, 2023.

Date of Filing: 30/03/2022

      Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                         MEMBER

APPENDIX

                                                  NIL

      Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                         MEMBER

                                                                                                                                     Forwarded/ By Order

                                                                                                                                                 Sd/-

 Assistant Registrar