DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 29th day of May 2024.
Filed On: 25.04.2022
PRESENT
Shri. D.B. Binu - President
Shri. V. Ramachandran - Member
Smt. Sreevidhia. T.N - Member
C.C. No. 220/2022
COMPLAINANT:
Leelamma Roy, Anjiparambil House, Kaloor, Kochi 17.
Present Address: C/o. Sarala, Vadakkedath House, Cherathrikkovil, Azad Road, Kochi 17
V/s
OPPOSITE PARTY
Kunjumon, Vidya Industries, LFC Road, Kaloor, Kochi 17
FINAL ORDER
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 complainant is a mother of a disabled girl. She approached the opposite party for repainting a high-quality steel cupboard while moving house and the opposite party agreed to do it. Additionally, the opposite party also agreed to fix a trunk from the complainant's currently non-functioning fridge. The complainant agreed to pay Rs. 5000 for painting the cupboard and handed over the cupboard, trunk, fridge, and table stand to the opposite party.
Despite numerous follow-up calls, only the cupboard was eventually returned to the complainant. Upon inspection, it was discovered that the cupboard returned was not the original one but an inferior substitute. Furthermore, the complainant had already paid Rs. 5000 for the painting service. The opposite party has effectively deceived the complainant by replacing the original cupboard with a lower-quality one. Therefore, the complainant requests the necessary steps be taken to ensure the return and proper painting of the original cupboard, as well as the repair of the fridge and table stand.
2) Notice
The commission issued notice to the opposite party, who acknowledged receipt. However, despite this acknowledgement, the opposite party failed to submit their version within the statutory deadline. Consequently, the opposite party has been set as an ex-parte in these proceedings.
3) Evidence
The complainant did not file a proof affidavit, and no documents were submitted with the complaint to the commission.
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 answered as follows:
The complainant initiated legal action to seek redress for the deficiencies in service and the engagement in unfair trade practices by the opposite party. However, the complainant did not file a proof affidavit, nor were any supporting documents submitted with the complaint. The complainant attended the commission hearings only until January 16, 2023, and from April 27, 2023, onwards, failed to attend subsequent hearings.
The commission directed the complainant to appear and submit a proof affidavit, issuing a notice and making a phone call on February 24, 2024, to inform them of the forthcoming hearing date. Despite these efforts, the complainant did not attend the hearing or provide the necessary affidavit, showing a lack of interest in advancing the case.
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. Mere allegations 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 party.
In the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849, it was 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., this court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.”
The complainant's consistent absence from Commission hearings and their failure to present any evidence or follow up on their complaint significantly undermine the credibility and seriousness of their claims. The complainant also neglected to submit a proof affidavit, a basic requirement under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, despite being explicitly directed to do so by the Commission. This persistent disregard for procedural norms indicates a lack of interest in the resolution process.
The complainant failed to make an appearance at the Commission on the designated dates to showcase their evidence or further pursue their complaint. Despite being afforded numerous opportunities, there was a consistent failure on the part of the complainant to furnish a proof affidavit. Consequently, the Commission issued a directive for the complainant to present themselves and submit a proof affidavit. Nonetheless, the continued absence of the complainant and their failure to submit the necessary evidence compelled the Commission to proceed with resolving the complaint with the available evidence.
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. 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.
In conclusion, 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.
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.
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 29th day of May 2024.
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. 220/2022
Order Date: 29/05/2024
