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. 454/2017 Filed on 17/11/2017

ORDER DATED: 31/03/2023

ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN: PRESIDENT

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:

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.  The 1^st opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegation raised by the complainant.  After accepting the notice the 2^nd opposite party failed to appear before this Commission and hence on 09/07/2019 the 2^nd opposite party was called absent and set ex parte.  The complainant filed affidavit on 11/10/2019.  Subsequently since 24/12/2020 to 01/06/2022 the complainant was continuously absent and hence notice was issued by this Commission to the complainant to appear before this Commission on 25/07/2022.  When the case came up for consideration on 25/07/2022, the notice issued to the complainant was seen returned with endorsement ‘addressee left’.  The case of the complainant in short is that he is a subscriber of 2^nd opposite party Sun Direct TV Pvt., since for the 2 years.  According to the complainant he is not getting the service from the 2^nd opposite party Sun Direct TV on the ground that he has not paid subscription fee.  The complainant submits that on 03/04/2017 a sum of Rs.249/- was transferred from his account with the 1^st opposite party to the account of the 2^nd opposite party.  Though the said amount of Rs.249/- was debited from the account of the complainant, the same was not seen credited to the account of the 2^nd opposite party.  Hence according to the complainant there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  Hence the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances.

The complainant though filed affidavit, subsequently he failed to appear before this Commission to mark the documents in evidence.  Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the complainant failed to appear before this Commission to further proceed with this complaint.  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.    

In the result 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 31^st  day of March, 2023.