DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 27th day of May 2024.
Filed on: 06/01/2021
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No. 13/2021
COMPLAINANT
Saji Elias, Neelankal Metals, Nellad P.O., Velloorkunnam Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk, Muvattupuzha-686 669
(By Adv. Sujith Somashekharan, XVII-427, Harikrishna Building, Town Hall Road, Vaikom, Pin-686 141, Kottayam District.)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
G.S. Mohankumar, Hannel-5, Hi-Tech Engineering, Vengoor P.O., Ayoor, Pin-691533 533.
(By Adv. Surya J., Kumaran Arcade, 1st Floor, Power House Road, Market Road, North End, Kochi-18)
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 complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The opposite party is the proprietor of Hannel 5-Hitech Engineering. In 2016, the complainant approached the opposite party to purchase a cup hanger making machine, with the assurance that it would be delivered within four months. In 2018, the complainant and a friend purchased two machines for Rs. 6,25,000/-.
The complainant believed the machine could be used continuously for three and a half seconds on a rubber rod. However, the machine failed to perform as promised. It jammed after bending two or three wires, rendering it useless. The friend’s machine also proved to be non-functional. Despite a 10-year warranty, the opposite party did not repair the machine, which remained unused for one and a half years. The complainant repeatedly requested repairs, but the machine was not fixed.
Unable to bend the rubber rods, the machine caused significant losses to the complainant. The complainant brought the machine back to the opposite party and requested a refund of Rs. 3,12,500/-, but was informed that the machine was repaired, which it was not. The machine still could not bend rubber rods, contrary to the opposite party's claims.
Due to the machine's non-functionality and the opposite party’s refusal to repair it, the complainant suffered additional losses. On 12.11.2020, the complainant demanded the return of the machine, but the request was ignored. Therefore, the complainant seeks the following reliefs from the commission:
- Refund of Rs. 3,12,500/- for the cup hanger making machine, with 10% interest.
- Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the mental and financial losses suffered.
- Costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be recovered from the opposite party.
2. Notice
The notice to the opposite party was sent by the commission. However, despite accepting the notice, the opposite party did not file a version, and as a result, they are set ex parte.
3. Evidence
The complainant submitted a proof affidavit along with five documents, marked as Exhibits-A-1 to A-5.
- Exhibit A1, A1(a): Bills issued by the opposite party.
- Exhibit A2: Copy of the Lawyer notice dated 10.11.2020.
- Exhibit A3: Postal receipt dated 12.11.2020.
- Exhibit A4: Acknowledgment dated 17.11.2020.
- Exhibit A5: Reply notice sent by the opposite party.
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 party to the complainant?
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iii) Costs of the proceedings, if any?
5. The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the matter before us, the complainant has approached the Commission seeking compensation for alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite party, following the purchase and subsequent malfunctioning of a cup hanger-making machine. After careful consideration of the submissions made by both parties, the evidence presented, and in accordance with the legal framework provided by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, we render the following judgment:
Legal Analysis and Observations of the Commission:
- M. J. Abraham vs. Angel Agencies & Ors., III (2000) CPJ 544:
- The holding in this case is that for the replacement of a product, the defect must be a manufacturing defect, and expert opinion is essential to establish such a defect.
- Classic Automobiles vs. Lila Nand Mishra & Anr., 1 (2010) CPJ 235 (NC):
“15. The onus to prove that there was manufacturing defect was on complainant/respondent No. 1. We agree with the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that complainant/respondent No. l failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defect by producing any cogent evidence. Complainant failed to produce expert evidence as provided under Section 13(l)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides as under:”
- The emphasis in this case was on the complainant's burden to prove a manufacturing defect and the necessity of obtaining an expert opinion before claiming the existence of manufacturing defects.
- Om Prabha Malviya vs. Godrej Photo Me. Ltd., FA/126/2006 on 9 September, 2011:
- This case dealt with the failure of the appellant to prove that a photo imager machine had a manufacturing defect and that there was a deficiency in the service rendered by the opposite party. The complaint was dismissed, and the dismissal was upheld on appeal.
- 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. “
In a series 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. As stated in the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd (2021 AIR SC 4849), "the onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in complaints under the Consumer Protection Act." It is the complainant who approached the Commission, and without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.
We have decided not in favour of the complainant on all the issues mentioned above. After careful consideration, we found that the case presented by the complainant is meritless. As a result, the following orders have been issued.
The Commission finds that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims of deficiency in service or negligence by the opposite party. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed, and no relief is granted to the complainant.
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.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Complainant’s Evidence
Exhibit A1, A1(a): Bills issued by the opposite party.
Exhibit A2: Copy of the Lawyer notice dated 10.11.2020.
Exhibit A3: Postal receipt dated 12.11.2020.
Exhibit A4: Acknowledgment dated 17.11.2020.
Exhibit A5: Reply notice sent by the opposite party.
Opposite party’s Exhibits
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 13/2021
Order Date: 27/05/2024
