Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/15/430

The Consumer Vigilance Centre - Complainant(s)

Versus

The MD,Katak Mahindra Prime Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

15 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

 

                  SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN       : PRESIDENT

                SMT.PREETHA G NAIR    : MEMBER

                                          SRI.VIJU.V.R                : MEMBER

 

CC.NO.430/2015 (Filed on : 15/09/2015)

ORDER DATED : 15/09/2022

COMPLAINANTS

1. The Consumer Vigilance Center,

(Rep.by its General Secretary)

Sree Kovil, Kodunganoor.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 013

2. Chrispin John.J

Badhel Nivas II, Arayoor Chenkal,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 122

 

(By Adv.T.R.Omana kuttan)

565.  

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. The Managing Director,

Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd,

Kotak Infinity, 4^th Floor,

Building No.21, Infinity Park,

Off. Western Express Highway,

General A.K.Vaidya Marg,

Malad (E), Mumbai – 400 097

 

2. The Branch Manager,

Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd,

Car Finance- Trivandrum,

SI White Heaven, Ground Floor,

Vellayambalam, Trivandrum - 695010

(Thirumala Adv.K Bijukumar)

 

ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN         : PRESIDENT

1. This complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

2. This is a complaint filed by the second complainant through a registered consumer organization who is arrayed as the first complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties 1 & 2 entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant. As the complainant not adduced any evidence inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, this Commission closed the evidence of the complainant on 26/06/2018. Subsequent to that also the complainant was continuously absent and there was no representation. On 15/07/2022 it was reported that the counsel appearing for the complainant has expired and hence this Commission issued notice to the complainants for appearing before this Commission today to further proceed with this complaint. When the case came up for consideration today the first complainant that is a registered consumer organization was represented and there is no representation for the second complainant. The representative of the first complainant submitted that inspite of the earnest efforts made by them, they were not able to contact the second complainant. The notice issued to the second complainant from this Commission was also served to the second complainant. The first complainant made an endorsement to the effect that they have not pressed the complaint in view of the absence of the second complainant. In the above circumstances, we find that the second complainant is not willing to further proceed with this complaint.

              In the result, complaint is dismissed for default. There will be no order as to costs.  

       A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

        Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 15^th day of September 2022.

 

 

                                                                                              Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                      Sd/-

        PREETHA G NAIR      : MEMBER

 

 

                                                                                        Sd/-

                          VIJU.V.R        : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/