DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 28th day of October 2024
Filed on: 10.06.2022
PRESENT
Shri. D.B. Binu Hon’ble President
Shri. V. Ramachandran Hon’ble Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N Hon’ble Member
CC NO. 289 OF 2022
COMPLAINANT
Roy Thomas, aged 58 years, S/o Thomas, Balummal House, House No. 10/356, Kannammli PO, Kochi, Pin- 682 008
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- Authorized Samsung Service Centre, GSS Quick Garage India Pvt. Ltd, No. 38/411, House No. 5, Govt. HS Road, Behind Changampuzha Park Metro Station, Edappally, Ernakulam -682024.
- Bismi Appliances, Near International Stadium, Kaloor, Kochi-682 017.
FINAL ORDER
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 purchased a Samsung refrigerator from the second opposite party for ₹45,000. At the time of purchase, the 2nd opposite party assured the complainant that the refrigerator came with a 10-year compressor warranty and service coverage, which was also explicitly mentioned on the front of the product. Relying on this assurance, the complainant proceeded with the purchase.
After five and a half years of satisfactory usage, the refrigerator's cooling performance began to deteriorate, and it eventually stopped functioning. The complainant promptly informed the second opposite about the issue, who in turn forwarded the complaint to Samsung’s authorized service centre.
A technician from Samsung inspected the refrigerator and charged the complainant ₹413 as an inspection fee. Despite the inspection, the problem remained unresolved. A subsequent attempt was made by another Samsung technician to collect the refrigerator for repairs. However, the technician refused to proceed with the collection, citing that the appliance had already been inspected by a different technician earlier.
The complainant repeatedly followed up with the first and second opposite parties, but no effective action was taken to resolve the issue. Even though the complainant expressed readiness to bear any additional service charges required, the opposite parties refused to repair or replace the defective refrigerator.
In light of the above, the complainant requests the Commission to direct the opposite parties to repair the refrigerator. If repair is not feasible, the complainant seeks compensation or a replacement with a refrigerator of equivalent value.
- NOTICE:
The Commission issued notice to the opposite parties, but they failed to file their versions within the statutory period and were consequently set ex-parte .
- Evidence:
The complainant did not submit a proof affidavit but provided four supporting documents.
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?
- 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 four postings of the case, demonstrating a pattern of non-attendance. Consequently, the commission directed the registry to inform the complainant on February 02, 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 parties.
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.”
CONCLUSION
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 the 28th 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 Parties’ Evidence
NIL
Date of Despatch
By Hand ::
By post ::
AKR/
Order in CC No. 289/2022
Date: 28/10/2024
