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. 56/2014  Filed on 03/02/2014

ORDER DATED: 29/12/2021

ORDER

SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT:

1. 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:
2. The case of the complainant in short is that, believing the assurance given by the 2^nd opposite party dealer, the complainant purchased a Brand new Skoda Rapid Ambition 1.6 TDI Vehicle manufactured by the 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party is the authorised service centre of 1^st opposite party.  The complainants case is that from the very beginning of the use of the vehicle, the said vehicle developed some sort of inherent defect like exhaust inspection system indicator light flashing together with a flashing glow plug system indicator, which was brought to the notice of the 3^rd opposite party, who is the authorized service provider of the 1^st opposite party and was curred temporally by the 3^rd opposite party.  Subsequently on several occasion same defect was developed and inspite of bringing the vehicle to the 3^rd opposite party on several occasions the problems developed to the vehicle was still persist.  According to the complainant he has suffered great mental agony and financial sufferings due to the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Alleging deficiency in service and manufacturing defect, the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances.  1^st and 3^rd opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version.  The complainant filed memo requesting to delete the name of the 2^nd opposite party from the party array and the same was allowed on 20/03/2015.  In the written version submitted by the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties they have denied the allegation raised by the complainant with regard to the manufacturing defect to the vehicle as well as the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  According to the opposite parties, the vehicle has been taken delivery by the complainant with full satisfaction and is still in the custody of the complainant and the said vehicle is in a Road worthy condition and doesn’t suffer from any defects of any nature and hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination on 02/02/2017.  Since 27/12/2017 to 02/08/2019, this case was adjourned  only for the purpose of appearance of the complainant to mark the document and to face the cross examination by the opposite parties.  On 02/08/2019, as the complainant was continuously absent and failed to mark any documents or to face the cross examination by the opposite parties, the evidence of the complainant was closed on that day.  Subsequently on 06/09/2019 the opposite parties filed their chief affidavit.  Till 23/01/2020 the complainant has not cross examined the opposite party in spite of giving sufficient opportunities, and hence the opposite parties evidence was also closed on 23/01/2020.  After recording no cross by the complainant.  Though the complainant was given sufficient time to mark the documents and adduce oral or documentary evidence, the complainant has failed to avail those opportunities to establish his case.  In the absence of any oral or documentary evidence on the side of the complainant to establish the case put forward by the complainant against the opposite parties, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case.  In view of the above discussions we find that this is a fit case to be dismissed. 

In the result the complaint is dismissed.  In view of the peculiar nature of the case 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 29^th  day of December,  2021.

C.C. No. 56/2014

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                                                    PRESIDENT