DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

             : Smt.Vidya A., Member                

             : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member           Date of filing: 25/10/2021                             

     CC/178/2021

Basheer

Sujeevanam, Ederam

Mannarkkad, Payyanadam (P.O)

Palakkad – 678 523                                                         -    Complainant

(By Adv. N.N.Praseeda)

V/s

1. The Chairman

   Kerala Automobiles Ltd./Neem G

    Aralumood (P.O), Neyyattinkara

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 123

2. M/s K.K.Agencies

    Electric Vehicle Dealer

Arani, Shoranur

   Palakkad – 679 523                                                        -    Opposite parties

    (Both opposite parties Ex-parte)

O R D E R 

By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member

1.  Pleadings of the complainant in brief.        

      The complainant purchased a “Neem” electric autorickshaw manufactured by 1^st opposite party from the 2^nd opposite party for Rs. 2,99,250/- vide invoice no: 41 dated 23/11/2020.  He further spent another Rs. 3,000/- for registration and other purposes.  The very next day onwards the indicator of the charge meter was seen not working properly, similarly battery backup was very low and the speedometer also was not working properly.  Though the issue was informed to the 1^st opposite party by way of legal notice, there was no proper response from them.  The 2^nd opposite party replaced the battery thrice, still the backup continued to be very low.  Regarding the charge meter and speedometer defects it was informed that these are not available in the market for replacement.

          So the complainant is not in a position to ply the vehicle and kept idle.

          Hence he approached this Commission seeking refund of Rs. 3,02,250/- with interest @ 12% per annum and compensation of Rs. 50,000/-

2.   Notice was issued to the opposite parties.  They did not enter appearance, hence were set ex-parte.

3.   As per the IA 161/22, allowed an Expert Commissioner was appointed by this Commission to assess the defects of the vehicle in question and he submitted his report on 30/05/2023.               

4.   Though the complainant’s pleadings appear to be genuine, complainant failed to file Proof Affidavit and mark documents in support of his pleadings even after being directed and ample time being given.  Thus the pleading stand not proved.

5.   Hence the complaint is dismissed.

      Pronounced in open court on this the 9^th day of June, 2023.

     Sd/-                                   Vinay Menon V

                                                 President

     Sd/-

           Vidya.A

                         Member   

                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                               Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                        Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked from the side of the complainant  : Nil

Exhibits marked from the side of the opposite party: Nil

Witness examined from the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined from the side of the opposite party: Nil

Court Witness: Nil

Cost:  Nil

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.