DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 27^th day of November, 2023

                                                                   Filed on: 23/12/2022

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                             Member

C.C. No 598/2022

COMPLAINANT

Ravikesh Krishnan T.R., Tolur House, V.K.C. P.O, Tevakkal, Kochi – 682021

Vs

OPPOSITE PARTY

Danny Jose, Electrora Business Link, Mulanthuruthi, Kochi – 682314.

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:

The complainant purchased a Dolphin model scooter, which is not registered, from Electrora Business Link (Ride on E-wheels) on May 13, 2022. Danny Jose, the owner of the company, claimed that the scooter could travel 100 km on a single charge, taking 4 hours to charge, and charged an additional 18,000/- for this feature compared to the regular model. However, in practice, the scooter only achieved a range of 50-56 km. On June 3rd, the complainant returned the scooter to the showroom for a battery replacement, but this did not improve the range. Mr. Danny Jose promised to resolve the problem with a battery from another company. On November 9, 2022, the scooter was again brought to the showroom, where they proposed to install a battery that would achieve the correct mileage. After a month of testing, the scooter was returned on December 14, 2022. In the complainant's absence, an older shock absorber was fitted, and a battery from a lower-end model was installed, still yielding only 50-56 km of range. Since the complainant requires the scooter to travel 100 km daily, this performance is inadequate. The complainant requests the return of the scooter and a full refund.

2. Notice

The commission issued notice to the opposite party. While opposite party acknowledged receipt of the notice, they failed to submit their version. As a result, they have been set ex-parte.

3) . Evidence

The complainant, in this case, has not submitted a proof affidavit but two documents.

1.       Copy of e-mail

2.       Copy of tax invoice

4) The main points to be analyzed in this case are as follows:

i)       Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant.

ii)      If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?

iii)     Costs of the proceedings if any?

5)      The issues mentioned above are considered together and are        answered as follows:

The complainant has been continuously absent since 03-05-2023. The Registry of the Commission has informed the complainant by phone to appear and furnish evidence. Despite being given the opportunity, the complainant neither filed the proof affidavit nor appeared before the commission thereafter. The complainant has had several opportunities to proceed with the case, but has shown no interest 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.”

The legal maxim "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, it has been determined that the complainant's case lacks merit. The issues above mentioned (i) to (iii) have also not been resolved in the complainant's favour. Consequently, the following orders are 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 on this the 27^th day of November, 2023.

Sd/-                     

D.B.Binu, President

          Sd/-

V. Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded/By Order

Assistant Registrar  

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 598/2022

Order Date: 27/11/2023