D.O.F:28/02/2023                                                                                                          D.O.O:10/12/2024

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD

                                 CC.56/2023

Dated this, the 10^th day of December 2024

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                                          : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA. K.G                                            : MEMBER

Kunjumon Joseph, aged 45 years

s/o Joseph,

R/at Thengum Palliyil,

Kallar, Rajapuram. P.O,

Kasaragod Dist.                                                       : Complainant

(Adv; P. Padmanabhan & Sudeep Gangan O.M)

                                                                        And

1. Doosan Bobcat India Private ltd,

HTC Towers,

6^th Floor No. 41, GST Road,

Great Southern Trunk Rd,

Guindy Chennai,

Tamil Nadu 600032.                                                : Opposite parties

2. Marwell Enncon Tech Private Limited.

RKP 6/333 H

Ramanattukara, Calicut 673633.

3. Doosan Infracore Construction Equipment,

HO 21 A Shastri Nagar, Opp KMCH Sitra,

Coimbatore - 641014

ORDER

SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT

          The facts of the case in brief is that complainant entrusted his Bobcat Mini excavator MX418 for repair to opposite parties.  But after two years the machine is not repaired and return back to the complainant.  The complainant sent legal notice to Opposite party.  The Opposite party sent a reply dated 05/12/2022 in the reply it is stated that their service man attend the service on 05/11/2020and adviced that the control valve and chassis parts of the machine required to be replaced.  It is false reply.  The act of Opposite party caused heavy loss to the complainant.  The complainant prays a compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- and return of the machine after repairs.

            The  opposite party 1 and 2 appeared and filed written version.  The contention of opposite party is that on receiving the complaint their service agent visited and attended the complaint.  On inspection the service man reported that the control valve and chassis parts of the machine required to be replaced.  But complainant not taken any steps to make it available.  There is no negligence or deficiency in service and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

            In this case repeated chance given to complainant to adduce his evidence.  Some Photostat copies of the document is filed along with complaint.  But not proved by as per the mandate of law.  So complainant failed to prove his case.  Hence complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs.

Sd/-                                                                                      Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                     PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

Ps/                                                              Assistant Registrar