Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/16/298

Jaya Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor,New cycle & Motor Trading - Opp.Party(s)

29 Nov 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

 

               SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN           : PRESIDENT

          SMT.PREETHA G NAIR     : MEMBER

                                      SRI.VIJU.V.R                      : MEMBER

CC.NO.298/16 (Filed on : 14/06/2016)

ORDER DATED : 29/11/2024

 

COMPLAINANT

 

Jayakumar,

S/o.Sukumaran,

Souparnika, TC 8/1702(1),

Santhi nagar, Arayalloor,

Thirumala.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram – 695006

(By Adv.O.B.Harikumar)

                                                                   VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

1. Proprietor,

New Cycle & Motor Trading Company,

M.G.Road, Pazhavangadi,

•  

Pin – 695036

(By Adv.Narayan.R)

 

2. The Managing Director,

Hercules Cycles Limited,

Chennai, Ambathoor,

Pin - 600053

(Exparte)

 

ORDER

 

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN      :PRESIDENT

 

1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

2.   This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties 1 & 2 entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant. Complainant filed chief affidavit on 09/06/2017 and subsequently sought time for filing fresh proof affidavit. Since 11/04/2018 this case stands posted for filing fresh, affidavit by the complainant. As the complainant was continuously absent and not filed affidavit, this commission issued a notice to the counsel appearing for the complainant with a direction for the appearance of the complainant on 01/07/2022. When the case came up for consideration on 01/07/2022 the complainant was represented through counsel and sought time for proof affidavit of the complainant. Subsequently on 12/07/2022 the complainant filed proof affidavit and since 13/09/2022 this case stands adjourned for marking documents of complainant. Since 19/10/2023 the complainant was continuously absent and there was no representation on behalf of the complainant. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the complainant failed to appear before this commission for marking complainant’s documents. In the absence of any documentary evidence from the side of the complainant to substantiate the case of the complainant against the opposite parties, we find that the complainant has failed to prove his case against the opposite parties. As such there is no piece of evidence against the opposite parties to substantiate the allegations raised by the complainant. In view of the above discussions, we find that this is a fit case to be dismissed for want of evidence.

                    In the result, the compliant is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.   

                   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 Commission, this the 29^th November 2024.

 

                                                                                   Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN       : PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                         Sd/-

PREETHA G NAIR     : MEMBER

 

                                                                                           Sd/-

                             VIJU.V.R                   : MEMBER

 

Be/