S.Ramalingam vs CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, CHENNAI TELEPHONES

THIS action came up for admission before us today.

THE complainant is one S. Ramalingam, having his residence at No. 81, Sami Pillai Street, Choolai, Chennai-112. The complainant instituted the instant proceedings impleading the Chief General Manager, Chennai Telephones, 79, P.H. Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-10 as the opposite party.

The gravamen of accusation in the complaint is that there is gross and inordinate delay in returning the deposit amount of Rs. 2,450/- in respect of telephone No. 586655 stated to have been transferred to some other person. The gross delay in returning the said deposit amount, he would say, is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

HE would claim compensation in a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs for his mental agony, sufferings and anxiety and what not. The complainant Mr. S. Ramalingam did not engage a Counsel of his choice and he himself pleaded for his case. Adequacy of opportunity was provided to him to project his hues of views in the matter.

ON sifting and scanning the averments made in the complaint and also in the other connected documents filed alongwith it, we are of the view that even assuming for argument sake that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, if not admitted, the compensation as has been claimed by him quantified in a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs for the mental agony and sufferings he had due to the non-return of the deposit amount, appears to be in astronomical figures beyond one''s comprehension. If at all any compensation is to be awarded for such sort of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the amount to be awarded as compensation, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, can''t be anyone other than in a minimal amount. This apart, the complainant has not given any evaluation or details for the computation of the compensation in such a huge figure of Rs. 10 lakhs. We are further of the view that because no Court-fee is payable in any consumer litigation action instituted before the FORA constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant is emboldened to knock at the doors of this Commission by evaluating a compensation in astronomical figures, viz., Rs. 10 lakhs. The compensation, if any, to be paid to him on account of the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, cannot at all go beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The complaint is, therefore, returned for presentation before the competent District Forum, of course after amending the necessary paragraphs in the complaint. Time for re-presentation is one month. The Registry is directed to return the complaint forthwith to the complainant so as to enable him to proceed further in the matter, of course, after obtaining the necessary endorsement for the return of the complaint. Complaint returned.