Delhi

New Delhi

CC/73/2019

BHUPENDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. TELEPATHY & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jul 2022

ORDER

 

 

  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No.CC.73/2019                                 

                     In the matter of:

 

Bhupender Singh,

             R/o H.N. 132 St. No.4

Ambedkar Colony, Chhatarpu

New Delhi-110074                                             ……..COMPLAINANT

 

Versus

 

             Telepathy and Others

G-21 Marina arcade outer circle

Connaught Place

New Delhi-11001                                                …..OPPOSITE PARTIES

Quorum:

           Ms.Poonam Chaudhry, President

          Ms. Nain Adarsh, Member

                                                                            Dated Institution:11.03.2019    

                                                                             Date of Order: 11.07.2022

O R D E R

POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. It is stated the complainant is a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act and is constrained to approach this Forum against the gross act of the opposite party as they have committed serious deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
2. It is further stated that complainant purchase a mobile phone from Respondent-1, which was not working properly. Complainant approached Respondent-1 and 2 and then told about the defects of the mobile and asked them to remove the defects, but both of them refused the request of complainant. The complainant then approached Respondent-3, he also did not help the complainant. Hence the present complaint with the prayer to pass an award of Rs. 9,100/- along with interest against the Respondents. And Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and 22,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Respondent No.-1 filed written statement stating that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and it is gross misuse of law. It was stated that competent purchased the mobile set from the respondent. It was also further stated that the compliant was directed to take the mobile set to the Respondent No.-2 for any Repair/Problem which was rectified by the Respondent NO.-2. Hence the question of deficiency in service does not arise in case of Respondent No.-1. It was also stated because the Respondent No.-1 is only the seller and all the responsibility falls on the Respondent No.-2 and 3.
4. Respondent -2 and 3 did not file written statement.
5. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for OP-1. Vide order dated 11.07.2022, the opportunity to file CE was closed as complainant failed to file the same despite several opportunities being granted.
6. Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in service but evidence was not led by complainant. The onus of proof of deficiency in service was on the complainant, after complainant was able to discharge its initial onus the burden would shift on OP.
7.  It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal no. 5759/2009 SGS India Ltd. Vs. Dolphin international decided on 06.10.2021 that the initial burden of proof of deficiency in service was on complainant. The relevant extract of the judgment is as under:

“28. In our opinion, the approach of the Consumer Fora is in complete disregard of 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 respondent. 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 produced 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.”

For the foregoing reasons the complaint stands dismissed that as complainant failed to prove deficiency of service on part of OP, no order as to costs.

The copy of order be uploaded on the website of the Commission.

File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of the order.

 

 

POONAM CHAUDHRY

(PRESIDENT)

 

                                                                                           ADARSHNAIN

                                                                                           (MEMBER)