Orissa

Rayagada

CC/27/2020

M/s Sri Aditya Logistics Pvt Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, M/s Mahavir Auto Diagnostics Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Sana Jagdish Kumar

23 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION RAYAGADA, ODISHA.

 

Date of Institution: 16.03.2020

      Date of Final Hearing: 23.03.2023

          Date of  Pronouncement: 23.03.2023

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 27 / 2020

The Managing  Director,

M/S.  Aditya Logistics Pvt.  Ltd.,

Raniguda  Farm, Rayagada.

 

(Through Self for the Complainant)                           …Complainant

Versus

1.The Manager, M/S. Mahavir Auto

Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd.,  Visakhapatnam,

State:Andhrapradesh.

.(None  for the  O.P No.1)                                         

2.The Manager,  M/S. Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt.. Ltd.,

Aurangabad, Moharastra- 431201.

And  anothers.

.( Sri  Biraja  Prasad  Patra, Advocate for the  O.P No.2)

 

…Opposite Parties

 

Present:          1. Sri Rajendra Kumar Panda, President.

           2. Sri Satish Kumar Panigrahi, Member.

ORDER

Sri  Rajendra  Kumar  Panda, President.

Brief facts of the case:-

Case in hand is the allegation of  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.Ps  for  not removal of defects of   4 wheeler  Motor Car SKODA KODIAQ STYLE  during existence of  warranty  period   as well as insurance  coverage  for   which  the complainant sought  redressal.

On being noticed the O.P No.2    appeared before this commission through their learned counsel  and filed  written version.

The O.P. No.1  & 3  were   not appeared though notices has been duly served  resultant made exparte.

During the course of  hearing  the complainant is  absent on repeated call though notices has been duly served upon him.

On perusal of the documents it is revealed that despite several adjournments taken  by the complainant for the purpose of filing relevant papers, the complainant failed to produce any documents in support of his claim.  When the pleading of  the complainant in support of his claim have been denied by the  O.P. the complainant is duty bound   to substantiate his claim by producing relevant documents there for, but he has failed to do so.  On the basis of mere pleadings of the complainant, without any supporting  evidence, no positive finding can be recorded in regard to his claim. Hence, we are constrained to hold that the petition made by the complainant  is  devoid of any merit.

The complainant failed to perform his obligatory  duty to remain present  and adduce evidence.

 In the result this commission dismiss the  complaint for default U/S- 38(3)© of the C.P.Act,2019

Miscellaneous  order if any  delivered by this  commission  relating to this case  stands vacated. 

 A copy of this order be provided to all the parties at  free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act,  2019 or they may download same from the confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of order received from this Commission.

The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

  

 (S. K. PANIGRAHI)                                                        (R. K. PANDA)

MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

PRONOUNCED ON 23.03.2023