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. 431/2023  (Filed on 18.08.2023)       

ORDER DATED: 12.08.2024

Complainant:

Mohamed Shah, Indian Tuff Glass, PRA-18, Puthuppally Lane, Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram-695 011.

               (Party in person)                

Opposite parties:

1. Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 6^th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110 001.

(By Adv. Reena Williams)

2. The Manager, Mastrofone, T.C. 3/2238, 1^st Floor, Sophiya Building, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.

              (Ex-parte)

ORDER

SRI. P. V. JAYARAJAN:  PRESIDENT

          This complaint is filed under Sec. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.  After hearing the matter this Commission passed an order as follows:

          2.  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 1 & 2.  The 1^st opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant.  After accepting the notice on 07.10.2023, the 2^nd opposite party failed to appear before this Commission and hence on 21.11.2023 the 2^nd opposite party was called absent and set ex-parte.  Since 24.01.2024 this case is adjourned for filing proof affidavit of the complainant.  Since 24.01.2024 the complainant was continuously absent till this date.  When the case came up for consideration today, the complainant was absent and there was no representation.  In spite of giving sufficient opportunities the complainant failed to file affidavit or documents to substantiate his case against the opposite parties.  As such there is no piece of evidence from the side of the complainant to substantiate the allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite parties.  In the above circumstances, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case against the opposite parties.  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 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 12^th day of August 2024.

              Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN                : PRESIDENT 

               Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR             : MEMBER  

             Sd/-

                                                        VIJU V.R                          : MEMBER

jb