The onus of proof that there was a deficiency in service is on the Complainant

The Supreme Court of India comprising of Justice Hemant Gupta & Justice V Ramasubramaniam allowed the appeal on 06.10.2021 in the case “SGS India Ltd. versus Dolphin International Ltd.” and held that the onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the Complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the respondent in the complaint. The Rule of evidence before the civil proceedings is that the onus would lie on the person who would fail if no evidence is led by the other side.

Therefore the initial burden of proof of deficiency in service was on the complainant, but having failed to prove that the result of the sample retained by the appellant at the time of consignment was materially different than what was certified by the appellant, the burden of proof would not shift on the appellant. Thus, the order of the Commission holding the Appellants as deficient in service is not sustainable in the absence of any clause in the work order that the specifications should remain the same even at the port of the destination.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court also relied on the judgment passed in the case of “Ravneet Singh Bagga versus KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr.” in which it was held that the onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. Thus, the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.

Also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Indigo Airlines versus Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors” held that the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party was primarily on the complaint.

Thus, the decision made by the Supreme Court was appropriate that the onus of proof that there was a deficiency in service is on the complainant.