2021 Supreme(SC) 547

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
SGS India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Dolphin International Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5759 of 2009
Decided On : 06-10-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Onus of proof of deficiency in service is on complainant in complaints under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(2) In absence of any proof of negligence on part of appellant at the time of loading of consignment, appellant cannot be held responsible if at port of destination, products specifications were not the same as certified by appellant at the time of loading of consignment.

Headnote:

(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Testing and Certification service – Deficiency in service – Compensation of Rs.65,74,000/- with 9% interest as well as cost of Rs.25,000/- awarded by National Commission – Onus of proof of deficiency in service is on complainant in complaints under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – It is complainant who had approached Commission and without any proof of deficiency, opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service – Commission has referred to samples collected at the time of dispatch of consignments to Netherlands but report of such samples has not been produced by appellant to hold that appellant is deficient in providing services therefore, drawn adverse inference against appellant – Initial burden of proof of deficiency in service was on complainant, but having failed to prove that result of sample retained by appellant at the time of consignment was materially different than what was certified by appellant, burden of proof would not shift on appellant – Commission has erred in law to draw adverse inference against the appellant – Orders on appellant to quality check groundnuts do not indicate that there was any obligation on part of appellant to ensure that requirements as specified at port of loading should also be met at port of destination – Appellant has certified weight, packing, quality and quantity of consignment at port of loading – There is no allegation that there was any deficiency either in respect of weight, packing, quality or quantity against appellant – There is even no allegation that directions regarding containers or packing were not complied with – Once there was direction that after fumigation tapes should be removed, then it cannot be said that appellant was duty bound to send in air-tight containers – The two things do not reconcile. (Paras 19, 21, 22 and 23)

(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Testing and Certification service – Deficiency in service – Compensation of Rs.65,74,000/- with 9% interest as well as cost of Rs.25,000/- awarded by National Commission – Complainant has not produced best evidence which they were expected to produce in respect of test results of samples sent by appellant to port of destination – In absence of any proof of negligence on part of appellant at the time of loading of consignment, appellant cannot be held responsible if at port of destination, products specifications were not the same as certified by appellant at the time of loading of consignment – In absence of any clause in contract to ensure that goods consigned has to meet products specifications at the time of loading of consignment, appellant cannot be held liable for change in specifications of agricultural produce at destination port after being in transit for two months on high seas – Order passed by Commission set aside and complaint dismissed. (Paras 24, 25 and 26)

Facts of the case:

Challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 1.7.2009 allowing the complaint filed by the respondent and directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.65,74,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization. The appellant was also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as cost to the complainant.

Findings of Court:

Appellant cannot be held responsible for the excess content of Aflatoxin for the reason that the result was a variance with the results in certificates given by the appellant. Still further, there was no obligation upon the appellant to ensure that the consignment would have the same product specification at the port of destination which were at the port of loading.

Result : Appeal allowed.