| Complaint Case No. CC/18/17 | | ( Date of Filing : 11 Jan 2018 ) |
| | | | 1. Prasanth A S | | 75-8/750,nanthanam,melattumoozhi,poovachal,trivandum |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Manager,Pioneer Bajaj Service centre | | Trivandrum,kerala |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | 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. 17/2018 Filed on 11/01/2018 ORDER DATED: 26/04/2023 Complainant | : | Prasanth.A.S, S/o.Sasidharan Nair.C, residing at 75(8)/750, Nanthanam, Mailottumoozhy, Poovachal, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 572. (By Adv.Saritha.V.R) | Opposite parties | : | - The Manager, Pioneer Bajaj Service Centre, TC 14/1727 (8),
People’s Lane, Jagathy DPI, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 014. - The Head of the Department, Customer Grievance Cell, Bajaj
Auto Ltd., Akurdi, Pune, Maharashtra – 411 035. - M/s.Bajaj Auto Ltd., Rep by its Manager, 4th floor, Manjooran
Estate, Cheranallur Road, Bye-Pass Junction, Edappally, Cochin – 682 024. (By Adv. N.C.Priyan) |
ORDER SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT: - This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration. After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:
- This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegation raised by the complainant.
- The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant purchased an ‘Avenger 150 Street’ Bike for an amount of Rs.79,544/- from Deedi Automobiles, Kaimanam, Thiruvananthapuram. After carrying out the first service, the bike started to show problem of gear slippage and the same was brought to the notice of the 1st opposite party service centre and after checking the vehicle the employees of the 1st opposite party informed the complainant that the problem was rectified. Even though the 1st service is a free service the 1st opposite party exorbitantly levied charges from the complainant in the name of labour charge, chain lubricant and oil price. After the 1st service the problem was not cured and hence the complainant again approached the opposite parties with his grievances. At that time the opposite parties assured to the complainant that the said defect will be cleared during the 2nd service. Subsequently the bike was entrusted to the 1st opposite party for 2nd service. Even after the 2nd service the complainant again charged exorbitant in the name of labour charge and oil price. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached this Commission to redress his grievances. The opposite parties 1 to 3 filed written version contending that there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party and on the contrary the opposite parties were provided the complainant all services required with abundant caution and care at free of cost. The opposite parties further contended that there is no manufacturing defect to the vehicle sold to the complainant. According to the opposite party the damages caused to the vehicle of the complainant is solely due to negligence from the part of the complainant. According to the opposite parties the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
- Issues to be considered:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice
on the part of the Opposite Parties? - Whether the complainant is entitle to the relief claimed in the
- Order as to cost?
5. Heard. Perused records. The complainant has not filed proof affidavit or documents to substantiate his case inspite of giving sufficient opportunities. Though the complainant filed an application for appointment of expert commission, the complainant has not taken any steps and hence that application was subsequently dismissed. The complainant was continuously absent. As the complainant failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate the allegation raised against the opposite parties, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case against the opposite parties. In view of the above discussion we find that this complaint is to be dismissed for want of evidence. In the result the complaint is dismissed. 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 26th day of April, 2023. Sd/- P.V. JAYARAJAN | : | PRESIDENT | Sd/- PREETHA G. NAIR | : | MEMBER | Sd/- VIJU V.R. | : | MEMBER |
R | |
