Mere Allegations Of Negligence Are Insufficient To Prove Deficiency: Ernakulam District Commission
The Ernakulam District Commission, presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., held that mere allegations of negligence are insufficient and concrete evidence is required to hold a manufacturer liable for deficiency in service. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant purchased a TCL LED TV with a three-year warranty from a TCL Showroom....
The Ernakulam District Commission, presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., held that mere allegations of negligence are insufficient and concrete evidence is required to hold a manufacturer liable for deficiency in service.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant purchased a TCL LED TV with a three-year warranty from a TCL Showroom. The complainant experienced issues with the TV and contacted the manufacturer. However, the complainant faced delays and poor service, including unfulfilled promises of repair or replacement. The exclusive dealer had ceased operations, leaving the complainant frustrated. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission and sought a new TV as per the warranty or Rs. 1,00,000 in compensation for the distress, delayed service, and perceived dishonesty from the manufacturer.
Contentions of the manufacturer
The manufacturer failed to file its written version making the proceedings ex parte.
Observations by the District Commission
The District Commission observed that the complainant despite filing a complaint, the complainant failed to attend any hearings or submit an affidavit of evidence to substantiate the allegations of service deficiency and unfair trade practices. The Commission noted that in consumer cases, the burden of proof lies with the complainant, as emphasized in legal precedents such as SGS India Ltd vs Dolphin International Ltd and Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. Furthermore, the legal maxim “vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt”—meaning “the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep”—was highlighted to stress the importance of being proactive in protecting one's legal rights. In this case, the complainant's failure to present evidence or actively pursue the case resulted in a weak position. Consequently, the District Commission dismissed the complaint.
Case Title: N.R Surendran Vs. TCL India Service Ltd
Case Number: C.C. No. 22/417