DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 27th day of January 2024.
Filed on: 15.01.2022
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C C NO.44 /2022
COMPLAINANT
Soya Mathew, S/o.Jacob Mathew, Mamballikuzhiyil House, IV A 166, Oormamana P.O., Pin-686 663, Ernakulam.
Vs
OPPOSITE PARTY
Amazone, Dratal, Shed No.XI, Nanu Bhai Nivodi, Olpad Road, ISKCON Circle, Jahangir Pura, Surat, Gujarat-395 005
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
This complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In this case, the complainant purchased a baby bassinet from Amazon on December 23, 2021, which was advertised with a 10-day return policy. However, when the product was received on December 28, 2021, it was damaged. Upon contacting the seller, the complainant was informed that the product was non-returnable and that the 10-day return policy was mistakenly included in the product details. Nevertheless, the seller agreed to refund the purchase amount. Despite this agreement, as of January 14, 2022, the seller had not taken any action to initiate the return or issue a refund. Consequently, the complainant is requesting assistance to return the baby bassinet and obtain a refund of Rs. 9949, along with additional expenses.
2) Notice
The commission sent notice to the opposite party, but despite accepting the notice, the opposite party did not submit their version. Consequently, they are set ex-parte.
3) . Evidence
The complainant did not submit a proof affidavit but presented seven unmarked documents before the commission.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
The complainant initiated this case, seeking compensation for inadequate service and unfair trade practices resulting from the opposite party's refusal to replace a faulty baby bassinet.
Since November 30, 2022, the complainant has been consistently absent. In response, the commission issued directives instructing the complainant to appear before the commission and provide a proof affidavit. A notice was dispatched to the complainant on February 15, 2023. Despite multiple opportunities extended, the complainant has neither supplied the required proof affidavit nor appeared before the commission subsequently. Several chances have been given to the complainant to proceed with the case, but there has been no interest shown in doing so
Due to the complainant's persistent absence and lack of evidence, the commission has no choice but to dispose of the complaint based on the available evidence. Consequently, the commission proceeds with the disposal of the complaint.
In the catena of decisions, it has been established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by presenting evidence before the commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant's case. Consequently, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
In the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that:
“19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. In a Judgement of this Court reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. 4 , this court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. “
"vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt" (The law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep.) is highly significant in consumer cases. It stresses the importance of being proactive and diligent in protecting one's rights and interests in legal matters. By actively safeguarding their rights, individuals are more likely to receive legal support compared to those who neglect their responsibilities. In consumer cases, this maxim emphasizes the need for consumers to be vigilant and attentive when facing potential legal issues, ensuring they protect their rights as buyers.
After careful consideration, the case presented by the complainant is considered to be without merit. As a result, the following orders have been issued.
ORDER
Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. As a result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this is the 27th day of January 2024.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
