Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1/2018

Neeta Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Axis Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2022

ORDER

 

 

  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

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

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No.CC.1/2018                                   

In the matter of:

 

Neeta Gupta, Wife of Lav Gupta, of 57 Years,

Indian Inhabitant, Residing at D-4, Tower 8,

New Moti Bagh, New Delhi 110023                              ……..COMPLAINANT

 

Versus

 

Axis Bank Ltd., Located at

Statesman House, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi 110001                                                     …..OPPOSITE PARTY

 

Quorum:

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

Shri Bariq Ahmad, Member

         

                                                                      Date of  Institution:01.01.2018                                                                 Date of Order:         30.11.2022

O R D E R

POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of  service by Opposite party.
2. OP filed written statement and evidence by way of affidavit.
3. Vide order dated 23.09.2022, the opportunity to file CE was closed as complainant failed to file the same despite several opportunities being granted.
4. Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency of service but no evidence was not led by complainant in support of the averments made in the complaint. The onus of proof of deficiency of service was on the complainant. After complainant was able to discharge its initial onus the burden would shift on OP.
5.  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 ascomplainant 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)

 

BARIQ AHMAD

                                                                (MEMBER)