30.11.2015
MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.
The instant Misc. Application bearing No. 304/2015 has been filed by the Misc. Petitioner/O.P. challenging the maintainability of the CC Case No. 328/2013 filed under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the Complainant.
The case, in a nutshell, is that the Complainant is an unemployed spinster. She, being influenced on watching a telecast in “Channel Vision” being the O.P. No. 3, conducted by the O.P. No. 2 on problems relating to hair fall, contacted over telephone the said O.P. No. 2 and requested for an appointment for a consultation on her hair fall problem and also for increasing her hair volume.
The said O.P. No. 2 suggested the Complainant a scalp tonic, a product manufactured by her and sold from her Beauty Parlour –cum-Treatment Centre, being the O.P. No. 1. The Complainant purchased the scalp tonic at a cost of Rs.220/- and she collected the money receipt exhibited at Annexure “A” in the complaint petition. The scalp tonic, 50ml in volume and sold in an unsealed plastic container was allegedly devoid of any indication as to its composition, net weight, manufacturing date, MRP, Batch No. etc.
The Complainant used the tonic meticulously following the instructions but was utterly disappointed when she observed that the problem was aggravated instead of any improvement within the period of 21 to 30 days as guaranteed by the O.P. No. 2. The Complainant contacted the O.P. No. 2 and according to her advice purchased from O.P. No. 1 one antidandruff lotion, some other products, and scalp tonic worth of Rs.180/-, Rs.1,360 and Rs.400/- respectively and used those products after having an assurance from the O.P. No. 2 that much improvement to her problem will be apparent very shortly. (Copies substantiating such purchased are attached as Annexure “B”, “C” and “D” in the complaint petition).
The O.Ps, allegedly, also suggested the Complainant to use Vitamin B Complex tablets as well as Pantaprazole and other tablets which the Complainant purchased from M/s. Light Drug House Pvt. Ltd. (Cash Memo enclosed as Annexure “E” in the complaint petition) at a cost of Rs.92/- only and used those medicines as per advice of the O.Ps.
There was no improvement to her problems in spite of using the above products and medicine following meticulously the instructions of the O.P. No. 2, although it was guaranteed by the O.P. No. 2, citing many instances, that the desired improvement shall be seen within 21 days. The Complainant considered this as an unfair trade practice done by O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 and filed the complaint petition mentioned above before this Commission which the instant Misc. Application relates to.
Heard Ld. Advocates of both the parties. The Ld. Advocate for the Misc. Petitioner/O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 submitted that the Complainant spent a total amount of Rs.2,252/-. The Ld. Advocate has drawn the notice of the Bench to para 18 of the complaint wherein the total claim was shown as Rs.40,00,000/-. The Ld. Advocate produced before this Commission the decision given by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2014 (4) CPR 636 (NC) [Neerad Pandey (Advocate) – vs. – Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.] and also the observation of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2014 (4) CPR 681 (NC) [Indrani Chatterjee & Anr. – vs. – AMRI Hospital through its Management]. It was pointed out by the Ld. Advocate that the Hon’ble National Commission, in both the cases, observed the claim of compensation as unusually high and having no basis. The Hon’ble National Commission observed that the motives of the Complainant in both the cases were to invoke the jurisdiction of the Higher Fora. The Ld. Advocate observed that in the instant case too the claimed compensation was unrealistic as it was unusually high and not based on reason. The case, according to him, is not maintainable and should be dismissed.
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant, on the other hand, submitted that the Complainant is an unemployed young lady of marriageable age. She was suffering from hair fall when she was befooled by the T.V. programme in Channel Vision, O.P. No. 3, conducted by the O.P. No. 2. Being allured by the advertisement in the said T.V. programme and also from assurances subsequently given to the Complainant by the O.P. No. 2, she spent her heard earned money. Unfortunately, there was no improvement to her problem, rather, her problem was aggravated. The Ld. Advocate pointed out that there was no labelling on the unsealed container of the supplied products as to the date of manufacturing, the date of expiry, Batch No. etc. The Ld. Advocate has drawn the notice of the Bench to para 12, 13 and 15 of the complaint petition which, she said, are explicit about the way the Complainant was befooled and cheated. The Ld. Advocate contended further that there has been a gross deficiency of service done by the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 and prayed for rejection of the Misc. Application.
Perused the papers on record. It appears that the Complainant spent a total amount of Rs.2,252/- but claimed a compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-. She has furnished nowhere the head wise break-up of her claimed amount of compensation, nor did she furnish the reasoned explanation of her claiming such an unrealistic and exaggerated compensation.
In the above circumstances, we may rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2014 (4) CPR 636 (NC) [Neerad Pandey (Advocate) – vs. – Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.] wherein the Hon’ble National Commission, while justifying the State Commission’s order for dismissal of the complaint in limine observed “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”.
We may further rely upon the observations of the Hon’ble National Commission in similar issue reported in 2014 (4) CPR 681 (NC) [Indrani Chatterjee & Anr. – vs. – AMRI Hospital through its Management] wherein Hon’ble National Commission, while dismissing the complaints, observed “there is no quarrel with the proposition that the question whether or not a claim made in a complaint is “realistic”, exaggerated” or excessive” is to be determined after the Complainant has been given an opportunity to prove the case he has set up and established his claim under various heads, but it has also been held that where ex-facie the claim made appears to be unusually high without any basis, as per the case set up in the complaint, a Consumer Fora would be justified in declining to admit the Complaint”.
In the light of the circumstances narrated above and keeping in view the above-mentioned observations of the Hon’ble National Commission, we are of the view that the Complainant, in the instant case, claimed an exaggerated and unrealistic amount of compensation without any basis of her such claim and with the sole motive of invoking the jurisdiction of the State Commission.
We allow the Misc. Application being No. 304/2015 on contest without cost. Consequently, the petition of complaint is dismissed. The Complainant is at liberty to file the complaint before the appropriate Forum.
