DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD

Dated this the 01^st  day of  June, 2022

Present  :  Sri.Vinay Menon V., President        

             :   Smt.Vidya.A., Member

             :   Sri. Krishnankutty.N.K.,Member

Date of filing: 20/03/2021

                                           CC/59/2021

    Hamsa.P,                                        -               Complainant

    Pallath House,Kanjirapuzha,

    Pothassery,Palakkad-678 591.

    (By Adv.Saheera Noufal)

                                                          Vs

       The Managing Director                    -             Opposite Party

       A.M Wings Honda,

       Mannarkkad,Palakkad.

       (Vakkalath not filed)

                                                 O R D E R

By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member

1.       The complaint was received on 20/03/2021 with the following pleadings.

                The complainant purchased a Honda Motorcycle Model ‘Livo’ from the  opposite party. The allegations made by the complainant are

          a) He booked for a 2019 model vehicle, instead 2017 model vehicle was delivered, which he came to know only when the Registration certificate was received by him where the month and year of manufacturing is given as 8/2017.

          b) The year of manufacture was not mentioned in the purchase invoice where as other particular were clearly mentioned.

          c) The vehicle developed some complaints immediately after purchase which was attended by the opposite party on a payment basis.

2.       Registered notice was issued to the opposite party on 29/03/2021 which was returned with reason “Not Known”.

3.       Subsequently fresh notice was issued to opposite party on 08/12/2021 which was promptly acknowledged by the opposite party.

4.       As per the version filed, the opposite party denied the allegation of the complaint regarding the model, year of manufacture of the vehicle, stating that the issue was discussed with him prior to  delivery was made with the complainant’s consent.

5.       The complainant has been continuously absent for the sittings from beginning onwards. Hence the complaint is taken for orders based on merit. Further he has not produced any evidence to prove the allegations.

6.       From what is stated above, it is clearly evident that the complainant is not taking any interest in pursuing the case by and appearing before the Commission and adducing valid evidence.

               Hence the case is dismissed.

                Pronounced in the open court on this the 01^st day of June 2022.                                 

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                              Vinay Menon V

                                          President

                                                Sd/-

                                            Vidya.A

                                            Member

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                  Krishnankutty.N.K

                                                                                        Member