DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 28th day of October 2024
Filed on : 05.05.2022
PRESENT
Shri. D.B.Binu President
Shri. V.Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No. 231/2022
COMPLAINANT
Dr. Shehana S., D/o Ibrahimkutty.S, Oottuparambil House, Pavumba North, Pavumba PO, Karunagappally, Kollam - 690 574
Vs
OPPOSITE PARTY
Surya, Owner of the Boutique, Srishti Couture Studio, Sub Jail Road, Near Zeenath Theatre, Periyar Nagar, Aluva - 683 101
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant approached the opposite party to order dresses for the wedding of her sister on 10th January 2022. At that time, Surya, the owner of the establishment, was not present. The complainant placed an order for all the wedding outfits, except for one specific item—a red-coloured lehenga.
On 18th January 2022, the complainant returned to the establishment and placed an order for the red lehenga for Rs. 15,000, providing a photograph to specify the design. Complainant instructed that the dress should match the one shown in the photograph, and the opposite party agreed to these specifications.
However, the complainant later found that the opposite party failed to deliver the dress as instructed. Instead of a red lehenga, the colour was orange, and the delivery was delayed. As a result, the complainant's sister could not wear the lehenga for the wedding as intended. Additionally, the opposite party did not provide the correct bill for the order.
The complainant seeks compensation, requesting that the cost and damages be recovered from the opposite party for the inconvenience and failure to meet the agreed terms.
2. NOTICE:
The commission issued a notice to the Opposite Party, who subsequently filed their version.
3. THE VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
The opposite party denied the allegation that she failed to provide the bill for the goods purchased. She asserted that the original bill was included with the dress sent to the complainant. Despite making sincere efforts to assure the complainant that the colour of the material matched the photograph shown, the complainant refused to accept it. To further address the issue, the opposite party even offered to create a new dress using the material and colour of the complainant’s choice, but the complainant declined the offer and was asked to leave.
The complainant’s claim that the work sketch was not shown is unfounded, as she had previously reviewed the designs prepared by the opposite party and expressed satisfaction. The opposite party incurred a loss on the material and labour costs for the first dress but accepted this loss to maintain customer satisfaction. To resolve the matter amicably, the complainant was provided with a new dress at no additional charge.
The opposite party maintains that the complainant’s allegations are baseless and inconsistent with the facts. Having provided the best possible service throughout, the opposite party requests the commission to dismiss the complaint.
4. Evidence:
The complainant did not submit a proof affidavit but provided two supporting documents.
1. Copy of Bill amounting to Rs. 37,700/-
2. Copy of advance payment Receipt for Rs. 5000/-
5. 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?
6. The issues mentioned above are considered together and answered as follows:
The complainant did not submit a proof affidavit to support her case, despite being given multiple opportunities. The complainant also failed to present any evidence to support her claims and was repeatedly absent from the proceedings between March 22, 2023, and October 18, 2024, which was the date of the final hearing. This pattern of non-attendance led the commission to direct the registry to notify the complainant on February 8, 2024, and June 3, 2024, asking her to appear and submit evidence. The registry even contacted the complainant over phone to remind her of the necessary steps.
However, due to the complainant's continued absence and failure to provide evidence, the commission is now forced to resolve the case based on the available material.
It is well-established that the complainant carries the burden of proof to show negligence or deficiency in service. Simply making allegations is not enough. Since the complainant failed to present any evidence or actively pursue the case, he has not proven any negligence or deficiency 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.”
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. 231/2022
Date: 28/10/2024
