By. Smt. Bindu. R, President:

            This complaint is filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the Opposite Parties Viz The General Manager, Bajaj Auto Limited, Pune and another by Sri. Sakariya, Kariparambil House, Kuttamangalam.

            2.  The gist of the consumer complaint is that the Complainant purchased an autorickshaw Bajaj 3WHRE COMPACT bearing Registration No.KL 12 J 7946 from the 2^nd Opposite Party who is the dealer of the 1^st Opposite party, the manufacturer.  The Complainant states that he had availed a loan for Rs.1,40,000/- on 15.01.2015 from Vijaya Bank, Kalpetta Branch for purchasing the autorickshaw.  The monthly installment of the loan was Rs.3,100/- and the Complainant had remitted an amount of Rs.40,000/- in the loan account.  The Complainant purchased the vehicle on 15.01.2015 from the 2^nd Opposite Party who had promised to the Complainant that the vehicle has 30 km of mileage and free from maintenance.  The Complainant purchased this vehicle for his livelihood.

            3.  During the 4^th week of February 2015 while the Complainant was plying the autorickshaw had started to loss the break and control of the vehicle, further the fuel mileage of the autorickshaw became 20 km from 30 km.  There were problems in handle alignment and erosion of tyres were high and sudden.

            4.  The Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite Party and 2^nd Opposite Party inspected the condition of the vehicle and informed the Complainant that the problem of handle and mileage of the vehicle are due to manufacturing defect.  Therefore the Complainant demanded for replacement of the vehicle with a new one, but the 2^nd Opposite Party informed the Complainant that such a burden is totally vested with the 1^st Opposite Party.

            5.  The Complainant thereafter states that, the above defects are due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle.  The Complainant then alleges that the 2^nd Opposite Party had delivered a vehicle to the Complainant knowing the defect of the vehicle which is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.  Complainant therefore prays for getting relief of replacement of the vehicle with new one along with other reliefs.

            6.  Upon notice from the Commission the Opposite Parties appeared and filed their joint version.  The Opposite Parties denied most of the allegations raised by the Complainant which are summarized as follows.  The main contention taken by the Opposite Parties are that they had offered 30 kms of mileage and the Complainant had enjoyed the vehicle with high mileage for 6 years since the purchase of vehicle in 2015 and the complaint is filed in 2021 which is after 6 years.  The Complainant had not proved the mechanical and manufacturing defect with the support of any evidence and had not obtained any expert opinion which is essential to prove the manufacturing defect.

            7.  Evidence of this case consists of three documents (not marked and are photocopies of (1) RC book of the vehicle, (2) permit and (3) insurance policy) and the chief affidavit from the side of Opposite Party.

            8.  The following points are to be analyzed by the Commission to derive into an inference of the fact.

1. Whether the Complainant had sustained to any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties?
2. If so, the quantum of compensation and costs to be awarded to the Complainant.

            9. Point No.1:-  The Commission examined the course of the complaint and seen that the Complainant had absented from appearing before the Commission and the Commission issued a registered notice to the Complainant directing the Complainant to appear before the Commission on 19.06.2023.  Even though the notice was served on the Complainant he had not turned up and adduced any evidence.  Hence the Commission had closed the evidence of the Complainant and the case was posted for the evidence of the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Parties filed their chief affidavit only.

            10.  Therefore the Commission decided the case on merit as follows:- Since the Complainant had not turned up and adduced any evidences to substantiate his case stated in the complaint, the Complainant had not succeeded in establishing his case on merit and Point No.1 is found against the Complainant.

            11. Point No.2:-  Since Point No.1 is found against the Complainant Point No.2 is not considered by the Commission.

            Hence the complaint is dismissed.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 10^th day of November 2023.

Date of Filing:-06.01.2021.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

Nil.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1.          Abhilash. K.                                      Service Manager at KVR Motors.

Exhibits for the Complainant:-

                        Nil.     

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

Nil.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.

Kv/-