DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA.A., MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date Of Filing: 15.12.2023.
CC/341/2023
Anu.V, Vembalamthodi, - Complainant
Alangad PO, Kadampazhipuram,
Palakkad-678 633.
(By Adv.Amitha Krishnan)
Vs
1. Vinu K.V.S, -Opposite Parties
Chenganayi House,
Edakkulam, Poomangalam,
Thrissur-680 688.
2. Imperial Trade Links,
Angamaly, rep.by proprietor,
George, Seenai Centre,
Near K.S.R.T.C Bus Stand,
Angamali-683 572.
(Both OPs Ex-parte)
ORDER
BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant:
The 1st opposite party arranged a quotation for the complainant from the 2nd opposite party for the purpose of availing a loan from Punjab National Bank, Kadampazhipuram. The loan proceeds were credited to the Bank account of the 2nd opposite party. The grievances of the complainant are as follows;
1) Some machineries supplied were defective.
2) Pulveriser supplied was second hand.
3) The complainant remitted Rs.15,000/- to the account of the 1st opposite party’s wife in Federal Bank Vellangallur towards the electrical work under the condition that when the loan proceeds are released by the Bank the same will be returned. But the opposite parties have not done that.
4. The complainant had to do some electrical work with his own funds.
Though the complainant got issued lawyer notices to the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party, they did not reply.
So, the complainant approached this Commission demanding replacement of the second hand machinery supplied, compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- apart from cost of litigation and other incidental charges.
2. Notices were served on the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party did not enter appearance, the 2nd opposite party filed version beyond statutory period. Hence, the version was rejected and hence the opposite parties were set ex-parte. Though the 2nd opposite party filed IA.No.125/24 and IA.No.123/24 to set aside Ex-parte order and to accept the version, they were dismissed as this Commission is not having authority to do so.
3. The complainant was continuously absent for the sitting on 18.03.2024, 25.04.2024 and 29.05.2024. Proof affidavit was not filed by the complainant inspite of repeated opportunities granted. Hence, the case was taken for orders based on merit.
4. As the complaint has to be heard on the basis of proof affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record as per Section 38(6) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 this Commission is not in a position to reach any conclusion in the case as the complainant has not filed proof affidavit or marked any documents in evidence.
5. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed. The complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.
Pronounced in open court on this the 6th day of June, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V,
PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
KRISHNANKUTTY N .K,
MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties: Nil
Witness examined from the complainant’s side: NIL
Witness examined from the opposite parties side: NIL
Cost : Nil
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.
