This Complaint, under Section 21(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed against Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., the sole Opposite Party, alleging deficiency in service on their part in firstly, not supplying a Voltas 1.5 Ton, 5 Star, Split Air-conditioner, costing ₹26,999/- and then not responding to the complaints made to them by the Complainant from time to time. On account of the said alleged deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant has claimed the following compensation: “Compensation/Prayer | 01- | Return back my AC amount | =00,26,999 Rs | 02- | Return back the installation amount | =00,01,530 Rs | 03- | Return back stand & pipes (fixture) amount | =00,01,216 Rs | 04- | My waiting time lose value for 120 days (120 Days X 2000 Rs) | =02,40,000 Rs | 05- | Mentally Disturbance value | =20,00,000 Rs | 06- | Air travel fair (120 day X 10000 Rs) | =12,00,000 Rs (approx.) | 07- | Local transportation fair (120 day X 4 X 500 rs) | =02,40,000 Rs. (approx.) | 08- | Stationery material, printing Xerox, file purchasing and cost of fling cash | =00,10,000 Rs | 09- | My time wastage against fighting this case in court in coming future (120 day X 3 X 5000 rs) | =18,00,000 Rs (approx.) | 10- | Health/Physical Harassment | =20,00,000 Rs | 11- | Current work affecting (120 day X 4000 rs) | =04,80,000 Rs | 12- | Communication bill (Mobile & Internet) | =00,12,000 Rs | 13- | Bank DD | =00,05,059 Rs | 14- | 80-90 times called to Flipkart but not responded | =09,00,000 Rs | 15- | All 3 persons have not their engineer ID proof | =30,00,000 Rs | 16- | No MOU between 3 persons & Minor Maintenance Services LLP | =20,00,000 Rs | 17- | No MOU/Agreement between ‘Minor Maintenance Service LLP’ & ‘Jeeves Consumer Service Pvt. Ltd’ reflecting on flipkart site | =50,00,000 Rs | 18- | No MOU reflecting between ‘Jeeves Consumer Service Pvt Ltd’ & Flipkart.Com | =99,00,000 Rs | | Total | =2,88,16,804 Rs | (Two Crore Eighty Eight Lac Sixteen Thousand Eight Hundred Four only)” |
We have heard the Complainant, claiming himself to be a System Designer, in person. We are of the opinion that, to say the least, compensation claimed under various heads is without any basis; illusory and has been exaggerated beyond proportion with a view to confer pecuniary jurisdiction on this Commission. In view of the above, we dismiss the Complaint in limine, with liberty to the Complainant to file a fresh Complaint before an appropriate forum, having pecuniary jurisdiction, if so advised. Needless to add that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the Complaint. Since the Complaint has been filed and is being prosecuted in person, we refrain from imposing exemplary costs on the Complainant for filing such a Complaint. |
