DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 23rd day of May 2023.
Filed on: 04.02.2020
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C.No. 56/2020
COMPLAINANT
Varghese. O. A Aged 66 years, S/o chandy Abraham, Resident of Bethel, Karigamthuruth, Kongorpilly P.O, Emakulam, Kochi-683518 .
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
Mr.Philip, Proprietor, Philip's Natural Honey Bee Farm', Attapallam post, Kumali, Iddukki District, Kerala-68:509.
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant is a professional Yoga teacher with expertise in various fields such as counselling, NLP, holistic lifestyle, and naturopathy. The complainant has a proven track record as a trainer and are passionate about nature conservation. The opposite party is the proprietor of a honey farm and claims to be an expert in honey bee farming, offering services for setting up honey bee farms. The complainant, being a nature lover, was impressed by the opposite party's proposal to grow honey bees in their medicinal garden for natural pollination and pure honey production. Believing the promises made by the opposite party, the complainant paid Rs.60,000 to set up 18 honey bee boxes on their premises. However, after installation, the opposite party failed to fulfill their promises of monthly maintenance, support, and replacement of honey bees. The bees eventually flew away, causing the complainant significant financial loss and mental distress. It was later discovered that the opposite party had cheated other customers in a similar manner. The complainant now doubts the opposite party's claims of expertise and authorization from the agricultural department. They believe that the opposite party's unfair trade practices need to be stopped to protect innocent people from falling into the same trap. The complainant seeks exemplary damages and compensation for their losses and mental agony. The opposite party continues their business through aggressive online promotion, further raising concerns about potential victims. It is evident from the facts presented that the opposite party is engaging in unfair trade practices and providing deficient services. They should reimburse the complainant's money and compensate for the losses and mental distress caused. Top of Form
Bottom of Form
The complainant had approached the Commission seeking an order directing the opposite party to return back Rs.60,000/- to the complainant with interest, to pay compensation for and amount of Rs.25,000/-to the complainant towards the difficulties and mental agony caused and to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses
2). Notices
Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party. The opposite party received the notice but did not file their version. Consequently, the opposite party is set ex-parte.
3) . Evidence
The complainant had not produced any documents to prove his case as per the proceedings.
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:
As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant had not produced any document to prove the transaction with the opposite party. Hence, the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Point No. i) goes against the complainant.
The above case is filed by the complainant for compensation for the deficiency in service of opposite party in connection with the purchase and for setting up honey bee farms.
For the sake of brevity issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are considered together. The complainant has not adduced any evidence or has proven hiscase.
The loss, difficulties and mental agony caused to the complainant as alleged by the complainant has not been proved by means of any oral or documentary evidence adduced by him other than mere averments made in the complaint. The burden of proof by the complainant to prove his case has not been met here.
The Honourable Supreme Court of India in Sgs India Ltd. Vs Dolphin International Ltd. on 6 October 2021 (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Civil Appeal No. 5759 of 2009) 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 this light of the above circumstances, the complainant had failed to prove his case on merit, and hence points Nos. (i) to (iv) are found against the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed with no cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this 23rd day of May 2023
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
C.C.No.56/2020
Order dated 23/05/2023
