Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.38 seconds)Ravneet Singh Bagga vs Klm Royal Dutch Airlines And Anr on 2 November, 1999
In
said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had relied upon another
judgment of case titles "Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal
Dutch Airlines & another" wherein it has been held that the burden
of proving any 'deficiency in service' is always upon the person who
alleges so. The ratio of aforesaid judgments are applicable in the
present. In the case in hand, the Complainant has alleged
manufacturing defect in the scooter. Meaning thereby the burden to
prove the manufacturing defect is always on the person who alleges
so but nothing has been brought on record by way of any expert
opinion or any other evidence to prove that it was a case of
manufacturing defect.
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
The Branch Manager Indigo Airlines ... vs Kalpana Rani Debbarma on 28 January, 2020
9. Mr. Abhishek Sharma Advocate, learned Counsel for
the Respondents/OPs has submitted that the District Commission
has rightly appreciated the facts and evidence and had dismissed the
Complaint of the Complainant on the ground that the Complainant
had failed to prove the 'deficiency in service' on the part of the OP by
leading any cogent and convincing evidence. No expert was
examined by the Complainant to prove any defect in the said Activa.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents has also relied upon
judgments i.e. "Tata Motors Limited Vs. Chetan Gill" (NCDRC)
1995(1)CompL.J.219, (2) "SGS India Limited Vs. Dolphin
8
First Appeal No.304 of 2023
International Limited" Civil Appeal No.5759 of 2009, decided on
06.10.2021, (3) "Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Dutch
Airlines & another", (4) "Indigo Airlines Vs. Kalpana Rani
Debbarna & others, (LL 2021 SC 544) and (5) "Tata Engineering
and Locomotive Co. Limited Vs. M. Moosa (New Delhi) in support
of his arguments.
Sgs India Ltd. vs Dolphin International Ltd. on 6 October, 2021
We have perused the record of the case carefully. The
Complainant had not brought on record anything to suggest that there
was any manufacturing defect in the scooter. Meaning thereby the
Complainant had failed to prove the allegations of manufacturing
defect in the scooter. Simply on the basis of averments made in the
Complaint and the arguments, it cannot be said to be a case of
manufacturing defect. The onus was on the Complainant himself to
prove that it was a case of manufacturing defect. The District
Commission has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of case "SGS India Limited Vs. Dolphin
International Limited" Civil Appeal No.5759 of 2009 decided on
06.10.2021 (LL 2021 SC 544) wherein it has been held that the onus
to prove deficiency in service is on the part of Complainant under the
10
First Appeal No.304 of 2023
Consumer Protection Act and it is the Complainant who had
approached the Commission without having any proof of 'deficiency
in service'. The OPs cannot be held liable for deficiency in service.
Sandeep Sharma vs Aryan Motors Pvt. Ltd. on 23 November, 2021
Learned Counsel has further submitted that the
District Commission had failed to consider that OP No.2 had taken 25
days for repair of the Activa and informed the Complainant for the first
time vide letter dated 10.01.2020 to take back the vehicle and he
replied the same vide reply dated 17.01.2020. Learned Counsel has
further submitted that Complainant was constrained to buy a new
scooter manufactured by the TVS Company vide invoice dated
11.01.2020 (Ex.C-14). At the end, learned Counsel has submitted
that the District Commission had ignored the said factors while
deciding the case. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also relied
upon the judgment of this Commission titled as "Sandeep Sharma
Vs. Aryan Motors Private Limited & others" F.A. No.626 of 2019,
decided on 23.11.2021 in support of arguments.
Chetan Gill vs M/S. Joshi Auto Zone & 2 Ors. on 18 September, 2020
9. Mr. Abhishek Sharma Advocate, learned Counsel for
the Respondents/OPs has submitted that the District Commission
has rightly appreciated the facts and evidence and had dismissed the
Complaint of the Complainant on the ground that the Complainant
had failed to prove the 'deficiency in service' on the part of the OP by
leading any cogent and convincing evidence. No expert was
examined by the Complainant to prove any defect in the said Activa.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents has also relied upon
judgments i.e. "Tata Motors Limited Vs. Chetan Gill" (NCDRC)
1995(1)CompL.J.219, (2) "SGS India Limited Vs. Dolphin
8
First Appeal No.304 of 2023
International Limited" Civil Appeal No.5759 of 2009, decided on
06.10.2021, (3) "Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Dutch
Airlines & another", (4) "Indigo Airlines Vs. Kalpana Rani
Debbarna & others, (LL 2021 SC 544) and (5) "Tata Engineering
and Locomotive Co. Limited Vs. M. Moosa (New Delhi) in support
of his arguments.
1