DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF JULY, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA.A., MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date of filing: 04.11.2023.
CC/300/2023
Krishorkumar.V, - Complainant
House No.2/531,
Kavundankulam, Eruthenpathy,
Palakkad, Kerala-678 555.
(Party-in-person)
VS
Hero Motor corp. Ltd, -Opposite Party
1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj,
Phase II, New delhi-110 070,
India.
(By Adv.M/s.M.J.Vince and K.S.Arundas)
ORDER
BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complaint is about the failure of “cruise control mode” of the electric motor cycle (Vida VI pro model) purchased by the complainant from the opposite party that led to an accident. The complainant bought the said motor cycle in September, 2023. While driving during night, on 29.10.2023 in “cruise control mode” he met with an accident as the vehicle failed to switch over to manual acceleration mode when brake was applied. The vehicle continued to run in cruise control mode even after applying the brake that caused the accident and resultant damage to the vehicle and injuries to the complainant. Aggrieved by this, complainant approached this Commission seeking relief of Rs.10 lakhs.
2. Notice was served on the opposite party. They entered appearance and filed their version denying the allegation that the vehicle is having any manufacturing defect as the complainant has not produced any evidence or expert report in support of his claim. Further, the vehicle purchased by the complainant is a well established product in the market and undergone all quality checks and test drives by their Quality Assurance Department before delivery.
3. Based on the pleadings of the complainant and opposite parties, the following issues were framed.
1) Whether the complainant had succeeded in proving the manufacturing defect of the vehicle ?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
4) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
5) Any other reliefs.
4. The complainant failed to file proof affidavit or to provide any documentary evidence to prove the complaint’s pleadings, inspite of repeated opportunities given by this Commission. Further, the complainant was continuously absent for the proceedings. Hence, the case was taken for orders on merit.
5. In the absence of proof affidavit or documentary evidence as specified in Section 38(6) of CP Act, 2019, this Commission is not in a position to look into the merits of the case.
6. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 5th day of July, 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 the Court: NIl
Document marked from the side of Opposite party: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: 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.
