DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 3^rd  day of October, 2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President                

                  :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                 Date of Filing: 12/01/2021    

     CC/6/2021

Jibin Thomas,

Kalayilputhu Parambil,

Thachampara (PO) – 678 593

Palakkad                                                                   -                       Complainant

(Party- in- person)                

                                                                                    Vs

1.  Managing Director,

     Radhia Motors,

     Authorised Dealer for Force Motors Ltd.,

     Kootupatha, Coimbatore Road,   Palakkad – 678 007

2. Branch Manager,

     Radhia Motors,

     Authorised Dealer for Force Motors Ltd.,

     Guruvayur Road, Poonkunnam, Thrissur – 680 002

3. Service Manager,

     Radhia Motors,

     Authorised Dealer for Force Motors Ltd.,

     Kootupatha, Coimbatore Road,  Palakkad – 678 007

4. Prasan A Firodia,

    Managing Director,

    Force Motors, Mumbai – Pune Road,

    Akrudi, Pune,  Maharashtra – 411 035                  -                       Opposite parties

     (By Authorised Representative)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

1.         The complainant is aggrieved by the starting problem that developed in his Force Traveller, six months after purchase. He alleges that the defect could not be rectified and sought for various amounts by way of compensations under various heads.

2.         Opposite parties entered appearance and filed versions repudiating the complaint allegations stating that the vehicle did not suffer any manufacturing defect. The complainant himself was responsible as it was due to his carelessness and negligence and failure to adhere to recommended service schedule that the vehicle suffered. They sought for dismissal of the complaint.

3.         The complainant had been continuously absent all through the proceedings from 1/3/2021 except on one occasion. Even though this Commission had directed filing of proof affidavit the complainant has not filed his proof affidavit nor cared to prove his allegations by way of cogent evidence. Hence, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove his case.

4.         Resultantly this complaint is dismissed.

                        Pronounced in open court on this the  3^rd   day of October,  2022.

                                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                                         Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

                              Sd/-

                                                                                               Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

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.