DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 29th day of June,2023
Filed on: 30/04/2021
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No. 196/2021
Between
COMPLAINANT
Soby Kuriakose, S/o Kuriakose, Malayil Puthenpura House, Monappilly, Puthencruz, Ernakulam, Pin-682308.
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- Kuzhivelil Electricals, Main Road, Puthencruz, Ernakulam, Pin-682308
- Kirloskar Brothers Limited, Corporate Office YAMUNA,Survey No.98(3-7), Baner, Pune, 411045.
- Kirloskar Brothers Limited, Registered Office Udyog, Bhavan, Tilak Road, Pune, 411002.
- Ceemer Electric Service Centre, Ernakulam-682314
FINAL ORDER
DB.Binu, President
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint is filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant purchased a Kirloskar pump from the 1st opposite party based on their assurance of it being a high-quality product with excellent after-sale service. The complainant paid Rs. 8071 and installed the pump, which initially worked well for four days. However, on April 23, 2020, the pump malfunctioned, and the complainant informed the 1st opposite party. The authorized service engineer visited the complainant's house the next day and identified a problem with the motor coil, instructing the complainant to bring the pump to the service center. The complainant complied and after two days, the pump was repaired and returned. However, after four days, the pump stopped working again, prompting the complainant to contact the 1st and 4th opposite parties. Another visit by the authorized service engineer led to the complainant handing over the pump to the service center once more, requesting a replacement since the product had not been functional since purchase. The service center assured the complainant they would address the issue promptly but failed to provide a satisfactory response, causing the complainant to escalate the matter to customer care. On September 4, 2020, the service center sent an email stating that they found no issues with the pump's working condition and the complainant could collect it within ten days. The complainant argues that if the service center found no faults, there was no reason to withhold the pump for four months before informing them. Despite multiple visits, the service center remained uncooperative.
2. Notice
The Commission issued notices to the first, second, and third opposite parties regarding the complaint. However, despite receiving the notices, these parties did not file their versions within the specified timeframe. As a result, the first, second, and third opposite parties are set ex-parte.
3) Evidence
The complainant had produced 1 document.
1. True copy of the purchase bill dated 19/04/2020 bearing No.0005 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant.
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 parties to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
The complainant has taken legal action to seek compensation for the inadequate service provided by the opposite parties. However, the case is currently on hold until the correct address for the fourth opposite party is provided. During the commission's session on 10.10.2022, the complainant was absent and did not have any representative present. The commission issued a notice to the complainant, to furnish the correct address of the fourth opposite party. The notice was sent to the complainant and was confirmed as delivered on 09.12.2022, as evidenced by the proof of delivery from the Postal Department. Despite being given multiple opportunities, the complainant has not attended or shown any further interest in proceeding with the case.
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. “6. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent...” 20. This Court in a Judgment reported as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. 5, held the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party was primarily on the complaint. This Court held as under: - “28. In our opinion, the approach of the Consumer Fora is in complete disregard the principles of pleadings and burden of proof. First, the material facts constituting deficiency in service are blissfully absent in the complaint as filed. Second, the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the ground staff of the Airlines at the airport after issuing boarding passes was primarily on the respondents. That has not been discharged by them. The Consumer Fora, however, went on to unjustly shift the onus on the appellants because of their failure to produce any evidence. In law, the burden of proof would shift on the appellants only after the respondents/complainants had discharged their initial burden in establishing the factum of deficiency in service.”
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.
After careful consideration, it has been determined that the issues framed by the commission do not favour the complainant. The contentions raised by the complainant are deemed to lack merit. Therefore, 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 on this the 29th of June, 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
