PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 4.8.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. C-295/2014/4852 – Neerad Panday Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. by which, complaint was dismissed as barred by pecuniary jurisdiction. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/appellant purchased a car Alto K-10, bearing No. DL5CJ 4434 in February, 2013 from dealer of OP/respondent. On 25.5.2014, complainant went for service to the authorized dealer Fair Deal Cars Pvt. Ltd. from where vehicle was purchased and dealer did not give satisfactory reply regarding problem of rusting on the internal and external part of the body of the car. Inspite of notice, OP did not respond. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint for recovery of Rs.50,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- as litigation charges. 3. Learned State Commission at the initial stage dismissed complaint in limine as barred by pecuniary jurisdiction against which this appeal has been filed. 4. Heard learned appellant in person who is also an Advocate and perused record. 5. Learned Appellant submitted that learned State Commission should not have dismissed complaint in limine, but should have issued notice to the OP and after considering objections complaint could have been dismissed; hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside. 6. Order of learned State Commission runs as under: “Clearly, the complainant did not go to the workshop with the complaint of rusting.He had gone there only for routine service. For a vehicle for the price of which was Rs. 4 lac, the complainant has claimed compensation of Rs. 50 lacs without giving any reason. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the complaint in this Commission is not maintainable being barred by pecuniary jurisdiction. Complaint is hence dismissed in limini.” 7. Learned State Commission rightly observed that for a vehicle of less than Rs.4,00,000/- complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- without giving any reason and rightly dismissed complaint in limine. 8. Learned Appellant placed reliance on (2009) 2 SCC 301 – Punj Llloyd Ltd. Vs. Corporte Risks India Pvt. Ltd. in which it was held that complaint cannot be dismissed in limine on the assumption that complaint involved disputed questions and contentions without considering pleadings of both the parties. Aforesaid judgment is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case as in the case in hand complainant claimed compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for a vehicle of about Rs.4,00,000/- and no reason has been given in the complaint for claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. Not only this, copy of legal notice given by the complainant to OP reveals that complainant asked OP to replace new car within 10 days meaning thereby, at the most he was entitled to replacement of new car which was around Rs.4,00,000/- and in such circumstances, there was no justification for invoking jurisdiction of learned State Commission and learned State Commission rightly dismissed complaint in limine for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. 9. Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs. | 
