If a dealer disputes your consumer forum complaint, who bears the burden of proof?
In a consumer forum complaint, the complainant bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of deficiency — showing that a transaction occurred, payment was made, and the product or service was deficient. Once the complainant discharges this initial burden, the burden shifts to the opposite party (the dealer) to rebut the deficiency allegation. Consumer forums do not apply the strict adversarial burden rules of civil courts — they take a practical, holistic approach to evidence.
The prima facie burden — what the complainant must show
To establish a prima facie case, the complainant must produce: evidence that a consumer transaction occurred (WhatsApp conversation, invoice, UPI payment record — any combination); evidence of payment (UPI screenshot, bank statement); and evidence of the deficiency (photograph of wrong item received, description mismatch, seller's refusal to address the complaint). This is not a high bar — it is a threshold showing, not a final proof.
For a fake error note complaint: the complainant shows the WhatsApp conversation describing what was ordered, the UPI payment for the agreed price, and either the physical item or photographs establishing it is not what was described. This is a complete prima facie case. The burden then shifts to the dealer to explain why the item delivered matched the order.
The reverse burden — what the dealer must disprove
Once the complainant establishes deficiency prima facie, the dealer must establish that the product conformed to the description, that the deficiency was caused by the complainant's conduct, or that no transaction occurred as described. A dealer who does not appear before the consumer forum to rebut the complainant's case faces an ex parte order — the forum proceeds on the complainant's evidence alone. In practice, many unscrupulous dealers do not appear, and ex parte orders are common in online fraud cases.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur — when deficiency speaks for itself
In some cases, the deficiency is self-evident — the evidence speaks for itself. If a collector ordered an uncirculated note and received a heavily circulated note, the deficiency is visible to any observer without expert testimony. Consumer forums apply a practical common sense approach — they do not require the complainant to engage a forensic expert to prove that a note described as 'UNC' which has visible circulation folds was misdescribed. Photographic evidence of the visible deficiency is typically sufficient.
Laws & authorities referenced in this chapter
Consumer Protection Act 2019 — §38(2)(c) (forum's power to proceed ex parte if opposite party doesn't appear)
Consumer Protection Act 2019 — §38 (procedure; evidence; forum's approach to burden)
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 — evidence principles applicable to consumer forum proceedings
Burden of proof in consumer forum: complainant establishes prima facie case (transaction occurred, payment made, deficiency evident). Then burden shifts to dealer to rebut. Consumer forums take holistic, practical approach — not strict adversarial burden rules. Res ipsa loquitur: self-evident deficiency (UNC note with circulation folds) needs no expert testimony. Dealer who does not appear: ex parte order on complainant's evidence. Most important: file your evidence — photographs, WhatsApp, payment record — comprehensively.
This is educational content, not legal advice. For a specific situation, please consult a qualified legal professional. Excerpted from Currency, Coins & The Law by Mayank Agarwal, Part 15: Dealer Disputes — Fake Items, Escalation, Identity & the Full Remedies Framework.