Burden Of Proof Lies With Complainant In Consumer Cases: Ernakulam District Commission
The Ernakulam District Commission, presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., held that the burden of proof in consumer cases lies with the party making the claim and the manufacturer cannot be held responsible without adequate proof of deficiency in service or manufacturing defect. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant entrusted their LG...
The Ernakulam District Commission, presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., held that the burden of proof in consumer cases lies with the party making the claim and the manufacturer cannot be held responsible without adequate proof of deficiency in service or manufacturing defect.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant entrusted their LG Stylus-3 mobile phone to the manufacturer's service center for repairs. However, the service center closed without notifying the complainant about the status of the repair. After the complainant visited the now-closed showroom and expressed intent to take legal action, the manufacturer returned the phone in damaged condition, with the display completely ruined. The complainant then approached the Commission seeking ₹10,000 for the phone's repair and ₹15,000 as compensation for mental agony and other hardships.
Contentions of the opposite party
The opposite party failed to file its written version. Hence, the proceedings were set ex parte.
Observations by the District Commission
The District Commission highlighted that the complainant alleged that after entrusting their mobile phone to the manufacturer's service center for repairs, the device was returned without the necessary repairs and was in a damaged condition. According to the complainant, the phone was handed back in a worse state than before, with the display completely damaged. The complainant sought compensation for the damage and the mental distress caused by the incident. However, upon careful examination of the case and the evidence provided, it was determined that the complainant had only submitted a single document supporting their claim. This evidence was deemed insufficient to substantiate the allegations made against the manufacturer. The Commission referred to the legal precedent set in the case of SGS India Ltd. vs. Dolphin International Ltd., where it was held that the burden of proof lies with the complainant. Without adequate proof of deficiency in service or manufacturing defect, the manufacturer cannot be held responsible. As the complainant failed to present enough evidence to prove their case, the Commission found that the issues raised by the complainant could not be resolved in their favour. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the complaint.
Case Title: Nazeer V.A. Vs. Jasir
Case Number: C.C. No. 22/438