Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/240/2020

Jithin Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Xiaomi Technology - Opp.Party(s)

16 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SISUVIHAR LANE
VAZHUTHACAUD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695010
 
Complaint Case No. CC/240/2020
( Date of Filing : 10 Nov 2020 )
 
1. Jithin Das
navadeepam,perumthara,kariyavattom,trivandrum
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Xiaomi Technology
outer ring road,bangaluru,karnataka
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sri.P.V.JAYARAJAN PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Preetha .G .Nair MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Viju V.R MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 16 Nov 2022
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

 

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              :           PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           :           MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             :           MEMBER

C.C.No. 240/2020 Filed on 10/11/2020

ORDER DATED: 16/11/2022

 

Complainant

:

Jithin Das.S, Navadeepam, Perumthura, Kariyavattom.P.O., Thiruvananathapuram – 695 581.

                     (Party in person)

Opposite party

:

The Managing Director, Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., 8th floor, Tower 1, Umiya Business Bay Marthahalli – Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 103, Karnataka, India.

 

ORDER

 

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN: PRESIDENT

This is a complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:

This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party.   The notice issued to the opposite party was returned with endorsement ‘addressee left’.  Hence the complainant was directed to take steps against the opposite party.  Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities the complainant failed to take steps against the opposite party.  As the complainant was continuously absent, this Commission issued a notice to the complainant to appear before this Commission to further proceed with this complaint.  The said notice was accepted by the complainant.  When the case came up for consideration today, the complainant was absent and there is no representation on behalf of the complainant.  The complainant also not taken any steps against the opposite party.  In the above circumstances we find that this is a fit case to be dismissed for default.

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

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 Court, this the 16th day of November,  2022.

 

Sd/-

P.V. JAYARAJAN

:

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR

 

:

 

      MEMBER

  Sd/-

VIJU  V.R.

:

MEMBER

 

R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sri.P.V.JAYARAJAN]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Preetha .G .Nair]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Viju V.R]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.