Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/386/2022

Raj mathew - Complainant(s)

Versus

kathir motors - Opp.Party(s)

16 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

               SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN           : PRESIDENT

          SMT.PREETHA G NAIR     : MEMBER

           SRI.VIJU.V.R                       : MEMBER

                                                  

CC.NO.386/2022 (Filed on: 15/10/2022)

ORDER DATED : 16/11/2023

COMPLAINANT

Raj Mathew.R.S

S/o.Mathew,

Devapalan Nagar,

Peroorkada.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram – 695078

(Adv.V.Sanal kumar)

                                                                   VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

 

The Manager,

M/s.Kathir Motors Pvt Ltd,

Opposite TVS Mahindra

Neeramankara, Pin – 695140

Thiruvananthapuram -40

(Adv.Narayan.R)

ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN                  : PRESIDENT

1. This complaint is filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

2.       This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant. Subsequently the complainant filed proof affidavit on 25/01/2023. Subsequent to that the complainant was continuously absent and not turned up for marking documents. As the complainant was continuously absent, this commission issued a notice to the complainant to appear before this commission today to further proceed with this complaint. The notice issued by this commission is seen returned with endorsement “addressee left”. In the above circumstances, we find that the complainant is not interested to further proceed with this complaint. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities to the complainant, the complainant failed to adduce any evidence before this commission to establish his case against the opposite party. There is no piece of evidence from the side of the complainant to prove his case put forwarded against the opposite party. In view of the above discussions, we find that this is a fit case to be dismissed for want of evidence.

                  In the result, the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

       Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 16^th day of November 2023.

                                                                            Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

                                                                                      Sd/-

        PREETHA G NAIR      : MEMBER

                                                                                              Sd/-

VIJU.V.R    : MEMBER

  

Be/