ORDER

THIRU.R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT (Open court) The complainant before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that he purchased a new Royal Enfield Bike, bearing Registration No.TN 16 H 6336 and insured for accidental coverage in MAGMA UDI Insurance Company. On 14.08.2022, the complainant met with an accident and his bike got badly damaged. Hence, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and handed over the vehicle for service and to rectify the damaged parts of the vehicle on 16.08.2022. Since the vehicle was insured with MAGMA UDI Insurance, the cost of repair and service will be paid by the insurance company directly to the 1st opposite party. The vehicle was handed over to the complainant on 24.09.2022, stating that all the repair works have been done. The cost for repair and service was paid by the insurance company to the 2nd opposite party. After taking delivery from the service point, on his way home, suddenly the front handle bar got struck and at that time a heavy vehicle was coming from the opposite direction and hence in order to avoid collusion with the heavy vehicle, the complainant turned the vehicle and in that process he fell down and thus averted a major accident. Due to deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite part, the complainant would have lost his life. Hence, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and left the vehicle for repair. On 03.10.2022 the 1st opposite party handed over the vehicle after repairing. But again the complainant could not operate the handle bar freely and when the said fact was informed to the 1st opposite party, they had informed the complainant to approach the Service point at Villupuram. Inspite of waiting for 45 days, the 1st opposite party had not done the service properly. Having received the payment for repair, it is the bounden duty of the 1st opposite party to attend to all the repair works properly. But, redirecting the complainant to take the vehicle to another service point shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. Hence, the complainant was put to mental agony and irreparable loss, since he is unable to use the vehicle. Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties through his counsel on 17.10.2022 and the same was received by both the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party sent a reply notice dated 04.12.2022 with false allegations. Thus, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Commission for a direction to the opposite parties to repair and rectify the defects of the complainant’s bike without receiving any further payment from the complainant; to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and irreparable loss of time; and to pay the cost of the complaint.

3. Since there was no representation for the complainant, inspite of sufficient opportunities given to him for filing proof affidavit he was called absent by the District Commission and dismissed the complaint for non prosecution.

4. Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant praying to allow the appeal and recall the order and to give a chance to contest the case on merits.

5. Before this Commission, the counsel for the appellant/ complainant appeared and submitted that since his previous counsel was not feeling well he could not appear before the District Commission to file proof affidavit. If the appellant/complainant had knowledge about the non appearance of his counsel, he would have definitely appeared before the District Commission and defended his case. Hence, the counsel for the appellant/ complainant prayed this Commission to set aside the order of the District Commission by remanding the matte