27.12.2017
MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.
Instant IA/145/2017 is taken up for passing necessary order.
Perused the I.A. and the available papers. It appears that the same has been preferred challenging the maintainability of the complaint in consideration of the fact that the Complainant claimed a huge amount of cost, compensation and punitive damage only with the intention of invoking the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
The fact is that the Complainant purchased one 1.5 ton split A.C machine at a consideration of Rs.37,750/- only on 13.03.2013. The AMC was entered into with the O.P. by the Complainant on payment of a further sum of Rs.5,908/- for a period of 4 years on and from 14.03.2013.
The said A.C. Machine developed certain defects and became non-functional. The O.P., on being contacted, assured on number of occasions of sending their technician, without, however, acting upto their commitments. The intervention of the Consumer Affairs Department to resolve the issues through negotiation between the parties also did not work. The Complainant, thereafter, being aggrieved with the aforesaid deficiency in rendering services by the O.P., filed the complaint case before this Commission with the prayer for passing order directing the O.P. to :-
- provide extended services to the said A.C.
- pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for harassing the General Secretary of the Complainant NGO.
- pay punitive damage to the extent of Rs.15,00,000/-
- pay cost of Rs.50,000/-
- pass any other order as the Commission may think fit and proper.
This means the Complainant has claimed cost and compensation of Rs.35,50,000/- together with extended services of the subject AC Machine against an expenditure incurred for purchasing the machine and its AMC for Rs.43,658/- (Rs.37,750/- + Rs.5,908/-) only.
Heard both sides. The Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner/O.P. reiterated his contention as narrated in his I.A. praying for dismissal of the complaint case as the Complainant did not come before the Commission with clean hands.
In the above context, the Ld. Advocate relied upon on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Complaint Case No. 1268 of 2015 reported in II (2016) CPJ 258 (NC) [Munish Malhotra – vs. – Era Land Markets (India) Limited] wherein the Hon’ble National Commission, while dismissing a complaint, was pleased to observe that the complaint was filed with clear attempt to inflate the value of relief which amounted to abuse of process of law being an attempt to short circuit the hierarchy of Consumer Fora.
The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Complainant submitted that the decree of mental agony and harassment cannot be measured. Mental agony and harassment on the instant occasion, as she stated, was acute enough to justify the cost and compensation as prayed for in the complaint.
Perused the papers on record.
We are constrained to arrive at a conclusion that the complaint containing an untenable claim of cost and compensation of Rs.35,50,000/- together with extended service to the machine valued only Rs.43,658/- including its AMC, was filed by the Complainant in his effort to invoke jurisdiction of this Commission by utter abuse of the process of law.
Going by the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble National Commission and also on critical analysis of the instant issue, we are of the considered view that the complaint was bereft of any merit for being considered as maintainable.
The IA/145/2017 is allowed on contest and consequently, complaint case bearing No. CC/125/2017 stands dismissed. No order as to cost.
