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

                  Thursday  the  27^th day of October  2022

                                C.C. 265/2020

Complainant

         Ismail,

         Enathu kandi (H),

         Karthikappalli P.O,

         Vatakara,

         Kozhikode,

Opposite Party

                   Manager,

Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Company,

New Bus stand,

Narayana Nagaram,

Vadakara

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:

On 25/10/2018, the complainant availed a car loan of 3,91,300/- from the opposite party. The agreed rate of interest was 12% p.a. Within 10 months, the loan was closed paying Rs. 4,66,100/-. An excess amount of Rs. 35,670/- was extracted by the opposite party by way of interest contrary to the agreement. Hence the complaint for getting refund of the amount from the opposite party.

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 265/2020 is dismissed.No order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Commission on this the 27^th day of October2022.

Date of Filing: 28/12/2020

                                         Sd/-

                                                                                                                                                     PRESIDENT                          

                                  Sd/-

                                          MEMBER                        

                                    Sd/-

                                            MEMBER        

APPENDIX

                                                                                                          NIL.

                                 Sd/-

                                                                                                                                              PRESIDENT                          

                                 Sd/-

                                    MEMBER                        

                             Sd/-

                                      MEMBER        

                                                                                                                                            Forwarded/ By Order

                                                                                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                                                                              Assistant Registrar