DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2024
Filed on: 30/07/2020
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. NO. 201/2020
COMPLAINANT
Bilal N., S/o. Shahul Hameed, Shabna Mansil, Ambalappuzha, Alappuzha, Alappuzha Medical College, Pin 688005.
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTY
IBALL, 87 89, Mistry Industrial Complex, MIDC Cross Road A, Andheri East, Behind Tunga International Hotel, Mumbai 400093.
F I N A L O R D E R
Sreevidhia T.N., Member:
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant had purchased an ‘Iball compbook Celeron 11.6 inch Laptop’ from the opposite party on 06/08/2018. After one month from the date of purchase the laptop showed some defects and the complainant had entrusted the laptop to the opposite party. The laptop was kept at the office of the service centre of opposite party about one month period and was then returned to the complainant. The complainant had to depend on other laptops or computer to prepare his presentations. After the repair by the opposite party the laptop again showed some defects and the complainant had entrusted the laptop to the opposite party. The opposite party stated that the spare parts of the product are not available now and hence the opposite party had not taken interest to repair the laptop. After the 4th repairing of the laptop, the laptop became defective again and now the laptop is under the custody of the authorized service of the opposite party at Pullepady, Kochi, Kerala. The opposite party informed the complainant that since the product is not under warranty they can’t repair the product free of cost. Hence the complainant had sent e-mails to the manufacturing company of the product. There was no response received from the opposite party. Hence the complainant approached this Commission seeking orders directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
- Notice
Notice was issued to the opposite parties from this Commission and thhe notice sent to the opposite party seen served on 11/09/2020. When the case was taken on 16/03/2021, opposite party not appeared and hence set as ex-parte and the case posted for evidence of the complainant to 20/05/2021 and then adjourned to 07/09/2021.
- Evidence
It is noted that the complainant did not file a proof affidavit eventhough 4 documents were submitted along with the complaint. These documents were not marked as evidence since the complainant has not filed a proof affidavit to support his claim. Some of the documents produced by the complainant are also vague documents. The complainant failed to appear before the Commission or to present any evidence on his behalf. The hearing to present the complainant’s evidence was initially scheduled on 20/05/2021 and then adjourned to 07/09/2021 and then scheduled to 19/07/2022.
On 10/03/2023 and on 26/09/2023, the complainant was informed over his phone to present before the Commission and to adduce evidence. The complainant was absent on the subsequent dates of hearing. The Commission issued a notice to the complainant on 29/04/2024 to appear before the Commission. The notice sent to the complainant seen served on 01/05/2024 and the complainant has not turned up on the subsequent hearing on 08/05/2024 and on 03/07/2024. Due to the lack of interest to attend the hearing no further evidence has been provided by the complainant. In view of the complainant’s inconsistent attendance and failure to submit the necessary evidence, the Commission has no other alternative but to proceed with a judgment based on the evidence currently available. The complainant’s repeated absence and failure to submit a proof affidavit or to appear at subsequent hearing demonstrate a lack of interest in pursuing the case.
The following documents are submitted by the complainant at the time of filing of this complaint.
Document No. 1 is a mail confirmation from Amazon, document No. 2 is a bill of the product (invoice details are vague), document No. 3 is a job sheet dated 24/12/2019. This document also not clear. Document No. 4 is also e-mail sent by the complainant to the opposite party and vice versa.
This complaint is filed as per Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As per Section 38 (a) every complainant shall be heard by the District Commission on the base of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record.
In a 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 insufficiency 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 party.
In the case of SGS India Ltd. Vs. Dolphin International Ltd. 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that it is the complainant who had approached the Commission therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party can’t be held responsible for deficiency in service.
In conclusion, the Commission finds that the complainant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims of deficiency in service or negligence of the opposite party. Therefore the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Resultantly, we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of evidence regarding deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of July, 2024.
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
V.Ramachandran, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 201/2020
Order Date: 30/07/2024
