DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2023
Filed on: 23/02/2019
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
CC NO. 97/2019
Between
COMPLAINANT
Nalinakshan B., S/o. Bahuleyan, Kunnuparambil House, Aroor P.O., Alappuzha.
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- Bajaj Finance, 3rd Floor, Kaloor P.O.
(Rep. by Adv. B.S. Suresh Kumar, M/s. B.S. Sureshkumar & Co., 2nd Floor, PRRA51, Ayyappankavu, Chittoor Road, Ernakulam 682018)
- Fridge House, Kaloor-Kadavanthara Road, Near Vinayaka Auditorium, Jawahar Nagar, Kadavanthra
- State Bank of India, Aroor Branch.
(Rep. by Adv. M. Jithesh Menon, M/s. P. Gopalakrishna Menon Associates, DD Oceano Mall, Marine Drive, Ernakulam)
FINAL O R D E R
DB.Binu, President
The complaint was filed under section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The complainant is absent and has no representation from his side. The opposite parties are represented.
The complainant is continuously absent since 19-02-2020. The commission has issued the notice to the complainant to appear and to furnish the correct address of the opposite party. The Notice was sent to the complainant on 26-04 -23 which was returned as “D\Locked’’ as per the proof of the delivery issued by the Postal Department. The complainant has not turned up so far. The commission granted this request and adjourned the case as a last chance for the complainant to provide evidence.
Despite the opportunity given, the complainant neither filed the proof affidavit nor appeared before the commission thereafter. The complainant has been continuously absent and has not presented any evidence to date. Several chances were provided to the complainant to proceed with the case, but they have 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.
Top of Form
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. “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.”
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. However, it is essential to mention that in this specific case, the complainant did not attend any hearings before the commission or submit an affidavit of evidence after filing the complaint.
After careful consideration, the case presented by the complainant is considered to be without merit. 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 on this is the 11th day of August, 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/
