25 Sep 2023 10:30 AM GMT
The North-East District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Surinder Kumar Sharma (President) and Ms Adarsh Nain (Member), recently dismissed a complaint against Philips India Limited. In the complaint, the buyer had contended that the Philips juicer mixer had multiple defects that were not resolved by Philips, despite numerous follow-ups with their customer care. However,...
The North-East District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Surinder Kumar Sharma (President) and Ms Adarsh Nain (Member), recently dismissed a complaint against Philips India Limited. In the complaint, the buyer had contended that the Philips juicer mixer had multiple defects that were not resolved by Philips, despite numerous follow-ups with their customer care. However, the commission ruled that the responsibility of proving deficiency in service rests with the complainant, and in this instance, the buyer could not provide sufficient evidence to support their allegations against Philips.
Shri Sachin Gupta (“Complainant”) purchased a Philips juicer mixer on March 4, 2022, for Rs. 2,951 with invoice no. 650. The product was defective from the date of purchase and did not function properly. The complainant contacted customer care six times between March 12, 2022, and April 13, 2022, but Philips did not address the issue or provide any information. The complainant requested either repairs or a replacement but received no response. As a result, the complainant filed a consumer complaint in the North-East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”) seeking Rs. 2,951 for the product cost, Rs. 20,000 for mental harassment, Rs. 10,000 for conveyance and other expenses, and Rs. 21,000 for legal notice charges. Philips was served notice but did not appear, leading to proceedings against them ex-parte.
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission conducted a review of the complaint and made several key observations. The complainant had submitted a copy of the purchase invoice and warranty card as supporting documents for his claim. However, the complainant asserted that he had informed Philips of the product defect and lodged complaints, but he failed to produce any documentary evidence to corroborate these assertions. There were no copies of complaints or correspondence exchanged between the complainant and Philips to validate the complainant's statements. Additionally, there was no mention of a job number or job sheet to substantiate the claims of product defects or repair attempts.
The District Commission referred to SGS India Ltd v. Dolphin International Ltd., wherein the Supreme Court held that in cases falling under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the onus of proving deficiency in service lies with the complainant. It was clarified that the complainant, being the party approaching the District Commission, had the responsibility to provide evidence of service deficiency. In light of these considerations, the District Commission determined that the complainant had failed to meet the burden of proof by not providing sufficient documentary evidence to support their contentions.
Consequently, the District Commission concluded that there was no substantiated case of deficiency in services or unfair trade practices against Philips. As a result, the complaint was dismissed, and no costs were awarded in favour of either party.
Case Title: Sh. Sachin Gupta vs M/s Philips India Ltd. and Anr.
Case No.: Complaint Case No. 295/22
Advocate for the Complainant: N.A.
Advocate for the Respondent: N.A.