DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 06th day of May 2024.
Filed on: 27/12/2021
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C C NO. 513/2021
COMPLAINANT
Jiju K Jacob, S/o.Jacob K.A., Kuppayil House, 370, Thiruvaniyoor Post, Ernakulam, Pin-682 308
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd., RBC Icon, Level-2, Doddenakundi Village, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, K..Puram, Hobli, Bangalore, Pin-560 037, Karnataka.
(op1 rep. by Adv.Biju Hariharan)
- Net Distribution Services Pvt., Ltd., A-302, Dipti Classic 32/34, Suren Road, Andhri East, Mumbai, Pin-400 093, Maharashtra.
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 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant is a first-year undergraduate student. On October 16, 2021, he ordered a Lenovo laptop (MODEL NO. 82B500BHIN, SERIAL NO. PF36R512) online, paying ₹68,740. The laptop was delivered on October 26. Upon detailed inspection, some keys on the keyboard were found to be non-functional. The complainant then contacted Lenovo Premier Support and was given two options: one, to repair the faulty part of the laptop for free, or two, to refund the amount paid. The complainant opted for the refund, which was confirmed by an email from the other party. However, when the refund was not processed, the complainant contacted customer care again. The opponent informed the complainant that the laptop could be sent to a service centre for inspection. An engineer inspected the laptop and confirmed a manufacturing defect, and even though this was communicated, the complainant was asked to inform Lenovo via email, which he did. However, the emails bounced back. In the absence of any response from the opposite parties, the complainant continued to send emails, leading to an email from the opposite parties commending the complainant's patience. The opposite parties also stated that the refund could be processed even after 40 days from the purchase. In a situation where the opposite parties did not adhere to their promise of refunding the money after the complainant returned the laptop, legal action was indicated in an email by the complainant. The complainant's father fell ill and was hospitalized in Ernakulam, Kolanchery, prompting the complainant to travel from Hyderabad to Ernakulam and back. While he was away, the complainant was informed by phone that someone would come to collect the laptop. The complainant then informed that he did not have the laptop with him in Ernakulam; it was in Hyderabad. Upon returning to Hyderabad, the complainant took steps to hand over the laptop to the opposite parties. Subsequently, the complainant handed over the laptop to the Blue Dart courier service branch in Hyderabad. On December 16, 2021, the complainant received a call that the laptop needed to be collected from Blue Dart Courier Service and handed over to another courier service as requested by the opposite parties. The complainant endured mental distress and lost his job for about two months, during which he could not attend classes. He demands compensation from the opposite parties for the original amount of ₹68,740, travel expenses of ₹3,960, case handling fees of ₹5,000, study expenses of ₹55,000, and compensation for job loss of ₹35,000.
2) Notice
The commission sent notices to the opposite parties. However, the opposite parties did not file their versions and were set ex parte.
3) . Evidence
The complainant did not file a proof affidavit; however, he filed photocopies of ten documents.
1. College identity and adhar card and electricity bill
2. Account statement
3. Invoice (hard copy)’
4. Invoice (soft copy)
5. Invoice (soft copy) serial number
6. E-mail copies
7. Engineer Report (service report)
8. 3 DOA Certificate
9. Courier E-way bill
10. Travelling expenditure bills
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and answered as follows:
The case had been scheduled for the complainant's evidence since December 20, 2023. Despite the Commission's Registry informing the complainant by phone on October 16, 2023, and urging him to appear and present evidence, he consistently failed to attend subsequent hearings, and no evidence has been submitted to date. Given the complainant's sporadic attendance and failure to provide the requisite evidence, the Commission is left with no choice but to proceed with the judgment based on the evidence at hand. The complainant's repeated absences and failure to submit a proof affidavit or make further appearances indicate disinterest in pursuing the case.
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. “
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. As stated in the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd (2021 AIR SC 4849), "the onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in complaints under the Consumer Protection Act." It is the complainant who approached the Commission, and without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.
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 is the 06th day of May 2024.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/- Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
/by
APPENDIX
Complainant’s evidence
1. College identity and adhar card and electricity bill
2. Account statement
3. Invoice (hard copy)’
4. Invoice (soft copy)
5. Invoice (soft copy) serial number
6. E-mail copies
7. Engineer Report (service report)
8. 3 DOA Certificate
9. Courier E-way bill
10. Travelling expenditure bills
uk
