THE ONUS OF PROOF OF THE DEFICIENCY IS ON THE COMPLAINANT, UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION - SC

The Top Court held that in a deficiency case under the Consumer Protection Act, the onus of proof of the deficiency is on the complainant. Without any proof, one cannot be held liable for deficiency in service.

Dolphin International Ltd, the complainant, engaged SGS India Ltd, the respondent, for providing services for inspection of groundnut obtained by it to export the same to Greece and Netherlands. Dolphin International Ltd filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum after that groundnut inspected by SGS did not meet the terms of the product at the time of loading of consignment. NCD directed SGS India to pay compensation of Rs.65,74,000/- with interest @9% p.a.

SGS filed an appeal before the top court. The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed that the contract did not have any clause ensuring that the goods consigned had to meet the products specifications at the time of loading of consignment. And hence, SGS cannot be held liable for the change in specifications of the agricultural product at the destination port after being in transit for 2 months on the high seas. 

The bench referred to Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, where it was observed that "deficiency cannot be alleged without attributing fault, inadequacy in the quality and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or differently".

The bench held that "the burden of proof is on the complainant and, once the complainant is able to discharge the initial onus, the burden shifts to the respondent. In the instant case, the appellant's failure to prove that the result of the sample retained by them at the time of consignment was materially different than what was certified, the burden of proof would not shift on the appellant”. 

Author: Papiha Ghoshal