Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

           This is a complaint under Section 17 (1) (a) (i) of the C.P. Act, 1986. In the instant Complaint, the Complainant elaborated how he had to suffer from physical harassment and mental agony after purchasing two devices of tablets valued at Rs. 93,800/- from the OPs.

        The facts, in brief, were that the Complainant herein purchased two devices of tablets on 30.10.2014 and 14.04.2015. The first device developed defect and a complaint to that effect was lodged with the OP service centre on 25.11.2014, that is, 27 days after purchase. A refurbished unit was supplied on 27.11.2014 which too stopped working on 02.11.2015 and the OP service centre refused to entertain the prayer of fixing the defects unless an amount of Rs. 30,000/- is paid for the job and thereby disregarded the Complainant’s claim for providing services during the period of warranty.

          The second device which was purchased on 14.04.2015 stopped functioning on 02.05.2015, that is, after 19 days from the date of purchase. The Complainant was provided with another set on 08.05.2016. The same set to develop defect on 12.06.2015, that is, only after 34 days since the date of supply. The device ultimately could not be repaired by the OPs because of their professional inefficiency. The initiative taken by the Complainant for arriving at an amicable solution also did not yield him the desired result. Hence, the Complaint.

          In the instant complaint, the Complainant prayed for refund of the cost of defective products amounting into Rs. 93,800/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. He also prayed for compensation for strain and mental agony as well as for litigation costs, the amounts to the tunes of Rs. 98,00,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively.

         Heard Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides who defended the causes and interests of their respective clients in their very short submission.

          Perused the paper on record. It revealed that the Complainant claimed reimbursement of the cost of the devices to the tune of Rs. 93,800/- with interest at the rate 18% p.a. plus compensation and cost to the extent Rs. 98,00,000/- and 10,000/- respectively. The total claim value appeared to be more or less 99,00,000/- only. No explanation was there justifying the reason for such a high claim of compensation. The complaint itself, in view of the above, appeared to be revealing about the Complainant’s intention of invoking the jurisdiction of the Commission projecting a claim value disproportionately high compared to the cost of the subject devices.

          The reason probably was sufficient enough for the claim not to be accommodated before this Commission. In this context, we may rely on the decision dated 07.11.2014 of the Hon’ble National Commission in Consumer Complaint Nos. 383 to 391, 398 to 402, 412, 415 of 2013 along with IA Nos. 1746 to 1761 of 2014 ( for stay) wherein the Hon’ble National Commission observed the dismissal of the complaint by the Lower Forum justified as the claim ex-facie appeared to be unusually high without any basis.

          This Commission, without going into the discussion on the other points that came up at the time of hearing declined to entertain the complaint with liberty to the Complainant to suitably amend his complaint and file the same before the appropriate Consumer Forum.

           Hence, 

                                        Ordered

       that the complaint is dismissed for filing disproportionately inflated claim in the complaint. However, for the ends of justice the Complainant is being given the liberty to agitate his grievance before the appropriate Forum. In that case the Complainant will be entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works—vs—PSG Industrial Institute-ii (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) 1995 3 SCC 583 for the purpose of exclusion of time spent in pursuing its case before this Commission.