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
Wednesday the 23rd day of August 2023
C.C.166/2023
Complainant
Abdul Muthalib.K
S/o. Saidalavi.K,
Kannamparambath House,
Kodampuzha,
Farook College (P.O),
Kozhikode – 673 632.
(By Adv. Nidha Nusrin.A)
Opposite Party
Proprietor
Zap Shoes,
Zap shoes Maac Arcade,
V.M.Basheer Road,
Calicut – 673 001.
(By Adv. Shiga .N.P)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against selling defective shoes to the complainant by the opposite party.
- The opposite party was set ex-parte.
- The points that arise for determination in this case are :
- Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, as alleged?
- Reliefs and costs.
- Point No.1: The opposite party was set as ex-parte. The case was posted for the 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 unfair trade practice or deficiency of service as alleged is proved against the opposite party.
- 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 166/2023 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this the 23rd day of August 2023.
Date of Filing: 02-05-2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX
NIL
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
True copy,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar.
