DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2024
Filed on: 29/03/2019
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. NO. 152/2019
COMPLAINANT
K K Paulose, Amminisseriyil Kakkalu Piravom, Ernakulam
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTY
- M/s Sariga Home Appliances, Karavatte Kurishu, Piravom, Ernakulam.
- Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., Second Floor, S. Kalamassery, CUSAT P.O, Ernakulam-682022
FINAL ORDER
D.B. Binu, President
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant purchased a Godrej refrigerator with a storage capacity of 213 litres and a special colour finish from the opposite party during the period of 2009-2010. The refrigerator came with a 10-year warranty for the body. Due to the special colour, the refrigerator was more expensive compared to other models. A few years ago, the complainant noticed damage to the refrigerator's body and reported it to the opposite party. Their personnel inspected the refrigerator and found that the door had started to rust slightly. They took the refrigerator's bill and warranty card, stating that they needed to show it to the concerned company. After some time, based on the opposite party's advice, a new door for the refrigerator was brought in. However, upon arrival, it was found that the new door did not match the colour of the refrigerator, which was a special colour edition. The personnel assured the complainant that they would bring a matching door soon, but despite numerous follow-ups, the replacement door was never provided.
Additionally, other parts of the refrigerator's body have also started rusting. This issue was reported earlier as well. Photos of the damage were taken as advised by the establishment, but the complainant's issue remains unresolved to date. Despite several phone calls to the opposite party, the problem has not been rectified. The complainant requests the Commission to intervene and resolve the issue by either replacing the entire damaged body of the refrigerator with one of the same grade and colour or, if this is not feasible, providing a new refrigerator. If a new refrigerator is to be provided, the opposite party should bear the cost.
2. NOTICE:
The commission issued notices to the opposite parties, who subsequently filed their versions.
3. THE VERSION OF THE FIRST OPPOSITE PARTY
The remedies sought by the complainant are not accepted by the opposite party. The complaint alleges that the complainant purchased a refrigerator from the first opposite party's establishment many years ago. The opposite party is unaware of when this refrigerator was purchased or its price. The complaint states that the purchase was made from 2009 to 2010. According to the complaint, the complainant does not possess the bill, guarantee, or warranty documents for the refrigerator. The complainant also mentions that one day, someone came to their house and took the bill and guarantee card, claiming it was for company verification. It is possible that someone visited the complainant’s house following a call to the company's toll-free number. The complainant did not visit or register any complaint with the first opposite party's establishment before 21-09-2018. The claim that a complaint was registered on 21-09-2018 is incorrect. As a dealer of Godrej Company, the first opposite party called the service centre on 21-09-2018. Subsequently, a mechanic might have visited, but the first opposite party is unaware if a mechanic visited or not. It is unreasonable and unbelievable that the complainant, after eight years of purchase without any prior complaint, now claims defects in the product. The complainant intends to malign and defame the first opposite party's establishment through this complaint. The first opposite party requests the commission to dismiss this baseless complaint with costs.
4. THE VERSION OF THE SECOND OPPOSITE PARTY
In the consumer dispute case, the complainant purchased a household appliance from the opposite party on June 18, 2010. On September 21, 2018, the complainant reported a complaint of rusting on the door and side cabinet bottom of the appliance. During the inspection, the opposite party offered to paint the affected areas free of cost and provided an estimate for service charges and transportation according to the door rust policy mentioned in the warranty card. However, the complainant was not willing to accept this offer. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., a manufacturer of household appliances such as refrigerators, air conditioners, and washing machines, claims that all their products undergo strict quality checks by their quality assurance department. Only those products meeting technical parameters are approved for sale through various agencies, and the company does not perform servicing directly. Instead, authorized service centres handle servicing.
The complainant did not respond to the company’s offer and subsequently filed a case in the consumer dispute forum in Cochin on March 28, 2019. After the case was initiated, the service manager from Godrej & Boyce visited the court and discussed the free painting offer with the complainant, including free transportation and service charges. Nevertheless, the complainant rejected this settlement and demanded either a replacement of the appliance or a cash settlement of INR 20,000.
The opposite party contends that they have not collected the bill and warranty card from the complainant, as per the complainant’s statement. They argue that the complaint was filed with malafide intention to gain wrongful advantage by misleading the commission. Consequently, the opposite party believes that the complainant is not entitled to any relief and requests that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
5. EVIDENCE
The complainant submitted a proof affidavit but did not present any documents before the commission to support his case.
6. The main points to be analyzed in this case are as follows:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
- If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
- Costs of the proceedings if any?
7. The issues mentioned above are considered together and answered as follows:
The complainant submitted a proof affidavit but did not present any documents before the commission to support his case. Despite being given several chances, the complainant consistently neglected to provide any documents to substantiate his claims. Additionally, the complainant failed to present his evidence and was notably absent on the initial dates of the case, demonstrating a pattern of non-attendance. Consequently, the commission directed the registry to inform the complainant on August 16, 2023, to appear and submit evidence. The registry contacted the complainant by phone regarding the required appearance and further steps. However, due to the complainant's ongoing absence and failure to provide evidence, the commission must proceed with resolving the complaint based on the available evidence. Despite multiple opportunities to comply, the complainant has neither submitted the necessary evidence nor shown interest in pursuing 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 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 party.
SGS India Ltd vs. Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849
In this case, it was held that:
“The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in 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 Judgment 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.”
CONCLUSION
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 parties. 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 the 29th day of July, 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. 152/2019
Order Date: 29/07/2024
