DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

 Dated this the 28^th day of October  2024

Filed on: 06/08/2022

PRESENT

Shri. D.B. Binu                                                                               Hon’ble President

Shri. V. Ramachandran                                                                          Hon’ble Member

Smt. Sreevidhia T.N                                                                     Hon’ble Member

C.C No. 369/2022

COMPLAINANT

Johny Joseph, aged 53 years, S/o T E Joseph, Thenamparambil,CC-63/3117, MG Road PO, Pin- 682 016.

VS

Opposite PartY

Jason Jose. Managing Director, PriyaTravels, St.George Shopping Complex, Near HP Pump, Bank Jun, Aluva Road, Angamali- 683572. Mob: 9544609897.

FINAL ORDER

D.B. Binu, President

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant paid an advance amount of Rs. 2,000 to the opposite party, a vehicle rental firm, to book a vehicle for a journey to Velankanni on 4th January 2022. However, the opposite party later cancelled the trip on 14th January 2022, citing a ban on bus entry to Tamil Nadu.

Following the cancellation, the complainant requested a refund of the advance amount. In response, the opposite party assured the complainant that they would either provide a seat on a future journey or refund the amount within one month. However, despite the complainant's repeated follow-ups after the stipulated time, the refund was not processed.

When the complainant contacted the opposite party again over the phone, he was informed that the money would not be returned. The opposite party also stated that if the complainant wished to pursue the matter further, he should approach the court for recovery.

As the opposite party failed to return the advance amount as promised and caused significant inconvenience and distress, the complainant has now filed this complaint before the commission. The complainant is seeking recovery of Rs. 2,000, along with compensation for the inconvenience, mental agony, and losses incurred due to the wrongful actions of the opposite party.

This complaint highlights the failure of the opposite party to honour its commitments and seeks appropriate relief from the commission to redress the financial and emotional harm suffered by the complainant.

2. NOTICE

The commission sent notice to the opposite party. The opposite party did not file their version and was set ex-parte.

3. Evidence:

The complainant did not submit a proof affidavit but provided one supporting document.

4. Points for Consideration:

i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the opposite parties?

iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

iv) Costs of the proceedings, if any?

5. The issues mentioned above are considered together and answered as follows:

                       The complainant did not submit a proof affidavit before the commission to support his case. Despite being given several chances, the complainant consistently neglected 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 February 08, 2024, 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. Furthermore, the complainant did not implead the manufacturer of the refrigerator as an opposite party in the proceedings.

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.”

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 28^th day of October  2024

              Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

V. Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

                        Forwarded/By Order

                          Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainant’s Evidence

NIL

Opposite PartY’s Evidence

NIL

Date of Despatch

By Hand       ::

By post         ::

AKR/

Order in  CC No. 369/2022

Date:28/10/2024