BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER
C.C. No. 330/2012 Filed on 25.09.2012
ORDER DATED: 01.11.2019
Complainant:
Prakash, Kalveena, T.C No. 13/304(14), ERA-22-A, EMS Nagar, Pattoor, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Pachalloor P. Mohanan)
Opposite parties:
- M/s Piaggio Vehicles (P) Ltd., 101 B 102, Phoenix, Bund Garden Road, Opp: Residency Club, Pune-411 001.
- M/s Siddhi Vinayaka Automobiles, T.C No. 81/1436, Aditya Complex, Medanada, Chakai-Kazhakuttom Bypass Road, Kulathoor P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. G.S. Kalkura)
This case having been heard on 17.09.2019, the Forum on 01.11.2019 delivered the following:
ORDER
SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER
The complainant has presented this complaint before this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging that on 20.01.2012 he had placed booking for an APE D600 LD vehicle with the 2nd opposite party as per receipt No. 3786 (7886). As per invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party the unit price of the vehicle was quoted as Rs. 1,60,348/-. When the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party on 14.05.2012 for purchasing the vehicle, he told the complainant that the unit price of 2012 make vehicle has been increased and the complainant has to pay the revised amount. The complainant effected payment by hypothecating with the SBI. When the complainant got the registration certificate it was seen that the vehicle registered in his name is of 2011 make and not on 2012 make. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service, for that effect he had filed this complaint before this Forum.
The opposite parties entered appearance. 2nd opposite party has filed version stating that the complainant after selecting the vehicle was issued with the details of the vehicle wherein the date of manufacturing of the vehicle was also shown as November 2011 and now the complainant had come up with false and ill motivated allegations. Hence complaint may be dismissed with cost.
Issues to be ascertained:
- Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?
Issues (i) & (ii):- Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience. The complainant has not filed fresh chief affidavit and also the documents were not marked as he did not turn up. 2nd opposite party has filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts. D1 to D6 were marked. The complainant did not turn up for cross examining the 2nd opposite party. No evidence was put forth by the complainant for proving his case. Hence for want of evidence the case of the complainant fails.
In the result, the complaint stands dismissed. There shall 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 Forum, this the 1st day of November 2019.
Sd/-
P.SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/-
VIJU V.R : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 330/2012
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
NIL
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
DW1 - Sreedhar
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
D1 - Copy of receipt dated10.05.2012 issued by 2nd O.P
D2 - Copy of payment voucher dated 16.05.2012
D3 - Copy of reply notice issued by 2nd O.P
D4 - Copy of credit note
D5 - Copy of registration details
D6 - Copy of registration details
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
