(1) Adv.Ashok Dubey is present for the complainant. Adv.S.B.Prabhawalkar is present for the opponent. He filed letter of authority issued by M/s.DSK Legal-advocates on record.
(2) Complaint has been filed by one Nickunj G. Shah in his capacity as Director of M/s.Nickunj Eximp. Entp. P.Ltd. claiming deficiency in service on the part of the opponent-Blue Dart Express Ltd. and amount of `5,26,430/- claimed as compensation for deficiency in service and `25,00,000/- towards damages.
(2) Learned advocate of the opponent brought to our notice that the agreement has been executed between M/s.Nickunj Eximp. Entp. P.Ltd. and the opponent and not with the complainant. Agreement was to distribute the marriage invitation cards and not the costly chocolates as alleged. Therefore, there is no privity of contract between the parties.
(3) Secondly, principal claim of the complainant is for an amount of `5,26,430/- for the alleged deficiency against the opponent. However, the claim is inflated by incorporating the demand for damages of `25,00,000/-. There is no provision u/s.14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to award damages for deficiency in service, it is only for compensation.
(4) Admittedly, there is no authorization in favour of the complainant as directed to prosecute the complaint before the Consumer Commission. There is no privity of contract as rightly argued. We find that principal claim for alleged deficiency in service is only for `5,26,430/-. However, just to bring the consumer complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this State Commission, damages to extend `25,00,000/- have been claimed. This is an attempt by the complainant to invoke the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission. The complainant has failed to make out the case for admission on two counts i.e. firstly could not establish privity of contract between the parties and secondly pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, consumer complaint no.CC/13/65 is NOT ADMITTED and hence rejected in limine.
