Mere Allegations Of Negligence Are Insufficient To Prove Deficiency: Ernakulam 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.