DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

 Dated this the 29^th day of October 2024

Filed On: - 26.03.2022

PRESENT

Shri. D.B. Binu                                                                               Hon’ble President

Shri. V. Ramachandran                                                                          Hon’ble Member

Smt. Sreevidhia T.N                                                                     Hon’ble Member

CC No.187 OF 2022

COMPLAINANT

Farha Fazul, C/o Jafar P.M, Firgouse, Vaduthla Jetty P.O, Arookkutty, Alappuzha-688535

OPPOSITE PARTY

UTSAV, MG Road, Ernakulam-35

FINAL ORDER

D.B. Binu, President

1. 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. On February 13, 2022, the complainant purchased churidar material from the opposite party. The employees at the store assured the complainant that the material was of excellent quality, convincing her to proceed with the purchase. The complainant paid Rs. 3,290 for the churidar material.

Subsequently, an additional Rs. 850 was spent on stitching the material. However, upon using the product, the complainant found that the quality of the material was substandard and did not match the representations made by the opposite party. This caused disappointment and financial loss, as the complainant relied on the assurance of good quality provided by the company’s staff.

Despite approaching the opposite party for redress, no satisfactory solution was offered. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant seeks appropriate relief from the commission. She requests a refund of the amount paid for the material and stitching (Rs. 3,290/-) and demands compensation of Rs. 10,000 for the inconvenience and mental agony suffered. Additionally, the complainant seeks reimbursement of litigation costs.

The complainant humbly prays that the commission may pass suitable orders to address the grievances and provide appropriate relief.

2. NOTICE

The commission sent notice to the opposite party. The opposite party did not file their version and was set ex-parte on 26.10.2023.

3. Evidence:

The complainant did not submit a proof affidavit but provided two 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?

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 October 26, 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.

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.”

We have decided not in favour of the complainant on all the issues mentioned above.

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 29^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. 187/2022

Date: 29/10/2024