This appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No. 1, Jaipur (‘the State Commission’) in Complaint no. 118 of 2018. The State Commission has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the claim has been exaggerated.

2.     Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant. Learned counsel for the appellant states that an Apple mobile phone was purchased for a sum of Rs.60,000/- approximately.  However, the phone started malfunctioning within a period of six months from the date of purchase. The warranty period was for one year. Therefore, the complaint was filed before the State Commission.  Rs.90 lakh was sought as compensation in the complaint. The learned counsel has stated that as per section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the amount of compensation demanded is to be added to the value of the goods and services to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction, accordingly, the complaint was filed before the State Commission. However, the State Commission has observed that unreasonably inflated compensation has been claimed by the complainant and, therefore, the complaint has been  dismissed.

3.     It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that compensation has no relation with the price of the product rather compensation depends on the sufferings gone through by the complainant and therefore, without examining the evidence, the State Commission should not have observed this fact.

4.     Learned counsel for the appellant has further stated that there is a delay of 96 days in filing the present appeal. The delay has been cuased due to the fact that the complainant contacted various legal persons to give their opinions whether to go to the District Forum as per liberty given by the State Commission or to file appeal before the National Commission. Finally it was decided to file an appeal before the National Commission, therefore, this delay has happened. An application has been filed for condonation of delay and the delay is inadvertent and without any intention.

5.     I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and have examined the material on record. It is seen from the application for condonation of delay that there is a delay of 96 days and no proper reasoning has been given in the application for condonation of delay. State Commission has already given the liberty to the appellant to approach the District Forum in the normal cause and file the present complaint there as the District Forum has the right pecuniary jurisdiction for the same. Obtaining legal advice from different sources cannot be termed as sufficient cause which was beyond the control of the complainant and therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has acted with due diligence in prosecution of his appeal. Special periods of limitation for appeal has been prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the speedy disposal of the consumer disputes. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), has highlighted the same by observing the following:

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”.

In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed:

“We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

6.     No sufficient cause has been shown for the condonation of delay of 96 days in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

7.     It is seen that the complainant has sought compensation of Rs.90 lakhs for a mobile phone purchased for Rs.60,000/- alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for mal-functioning of the phone after six months of the purchase. Section 14 (1) (d) of the CP Act, 1986, provides that compensation is to be awarded to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the complainant on account of negligence on the part of opposite party. Clearly, the compensation of Rs.90 lakh cannot be justified on the basis of the negligence on the part of the opposite party in the present case. In the present case, the State Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction and has rightly allowed the complainant to approach the District Forum.

8.     Based on the above discussion, I do not see any merit in the present appeal no.1106 of 2019 and the same is dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merit. The complainant, obviously, will have the right to file the consumer complaint before the District Forum and the time spent in the State Commission and in this Commission shall not be counted towards the period of limitation.