S.Ramalingam vs Philips India Ltd.

THIS action came up for admission before us today. The complainant is one S. Ramalingam, residing at No. 81, Sami Pillai Street, Choolai, Chennai-600 112. The complainant has instituted the present proceedings against the opposite parties; viz. : (1) M/s. Philips India Ltd., 3, Haddows Road, Chennai-6. (2) M/s. S.K. Home Needs, (Retail Showroom of Philips India Ltd.) 69, P.H. Road, Chennai-79. (3) Fomra & Co., (Authorised Philips Dealer) 24, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-79. (4) Madras Electronics Service Engg. V.V. Achuthem (Authorised Philips Services Centre), 84, Linghi Chetty St., Chennai-1.

THE complainant appears to have purchased a Colour Television 21" Model No. 2651 manufactured by the 1st opposite party M/s. Philips India Limited, having Zonal Office at 3, Haddows Road, Chennai-6, from their retail agents, viz., M/s. S.K. Home Needs, for Rs. 14,300/- on 15.1.1997. THE T.V. purchased was defective in the sense of going out of order on and off and pretty requests emanated from him for rectification of the defects, were never acceded to. This sort of an act on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant would say, is deficiency in service on their part. For such deficiency in service, he has claimed compensation quantified in a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs.

The complainant Mr. S. Ramalingam did not engage a Counsel of his choice and he himself projected his hues of views in the matter. Adequacy of opportunity was provided to him to express his views.

WE have carefully sifted and scanned the averments made in the complaint as well as the other connected documents filed alongwith it. WE are of the view that even assuming that there is any sort of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the compensation so claimed can, by no stretch of imagination be commensurate with the deficiency in service and if at all any compensation is to be payable for the alleged deficiency in service, such compensation can''t be anyone other a minimal amount. WE are further of the view that since no Court-fee is payable in respect of actions instituted before the FORA constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant is emboldened to evaluate and claim a compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs. WE are further of the view that if at all any compensation is payable for the alleged deficiency in service, such sort of payment of compensation cannot go far beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. The complaint is, therefore, returned to be presented before the competent District Forum, ofcourse, after amending the necessary and requisite paragraph in the complaint. Time for re-presentation is one month. The Registry is directed to forthwith return the complaint to him so as to enable him to proceed further in the matter, ofcourse, after obtaining the necessary endorsement for the return of the complaint. Complaint returned.