PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      Counsel for the petitioner heard.  The State Commission passed the following order:-

“2.        The complaint has been dismissed by the District Forum, on the only ground that the District Forum, do not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the case, since the claim exceeds Rs. 20 lakhs.   At the time of enquiry in the appeal before this commission, the learned counsel for appellant submits that though the claim has been made for several reasons, and though the total claim made may be upto Rs. 42,50,000/- in paragraph 11 of the complaint, it has been specifically restricted to Rs. 20,00,000/-, to bring the dispute within the jurisdiction of the District Forum.”

2.      It is strange that the counsel for the OP has approached this Commission.  Counsel for the respondent has brought our attention towards the prayer clause in Para No. 13, which is reproduced as follows:-

    “13.        It is therefore humbly prayed that this Honourable court may kindly be pleased to pass an order directing the opposite parties.

1. Replace the defective vehicle with a new defect less vehicle to the complainant.
2. Pay an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) towards compensation for the expenses and loss incurred and the mental and physical strain and stress undergone by the complainant.’
3. To pay the costs of the complaint to the complainant; and
4. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice.”

3.      Counsel for the petitioner submits that if he will replace the said old car with a new car, it will be more than Rs. 24,94,199/- on road.  He also submits that the State Commission did not consider the first prayer of the complainant.

4.      We are not satisfied with these arguments.  If the OP will replace the car, it will get some amount by selling the old car.  That will be less than Rs. 20,00,000/-.  By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the old car will be sold for a song, it will fetch atleast 50% of the amount already paid.  The complainant has got no grouse, but on the contrary, the OP has got the grievance.  This is a frivolous and vexatious complaint.  The precious time of the Commission stands wasted.  The purpose and object of C.P.Act stand defeated.

5.      The Revision Petition is lame of strength and is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-, which will be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order, otherwise it will carry interest @ 10% till its realization, U/S 26 of C.P. Act.