VIKAS SINGH vs B.M.W. India Private Limited

VIKAS Singh, the complainant herein has filed the instant complaint against opposite party No. 1 for selling inherently defective vehicle and against opposite party No. 2 for deficiency in service with respect to the repairs and after sales service of the vehicle when the defects were brought to their notice. The complainant has prayed for following reliefs: "i) Allow the complaint; holding the OP No. 1 liable for selling a defective car and holding OP -2 deficient in rendering services to remove the defect in the car, holding them jointly and severally liable;

ii) Award refund of money paid by the complainant against the invoices raised by OP No. 2 for the alleged repair of the said vehicle being Rs. 7,78,900/ - with interest at the prevailing market rate from the date of the said payment till the date of its refund;

iii) Award a sum of Rs. 1,70,00,000/ - (Rupees One Crore Seventy Lacs only) as compensation for mental agony, stress, harassment and embarrassment and loss of use of car for the time it was taken for repair by the opposite parties to the complainant, including causing prejudice to the professional and social commitments of the complainant; and

iv) pass such further or other orders as may deem fit in the interest of justice."

ON reading of the complaint, prima facie it appears that instant complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Commission. Thus, we have heard arguments on issue of maintainability. As noted above, the first ground on which the consumer complaint has been filed is that the opposite parties are guilty of selling inherently defective vehicle and they have not been able to remove the defects despite of the fact that subject vehicle was taken to the service station run by opposite party No. 2 on several occasions. In this regard, it is suffice to say that complainant has no locus standi to raise the aforesaid dispute because as per the allegations in the complaint, he is not the original purchaser of the car and he had sold the car to a third person before filing of the complaint. It is categorically alleged in the complaint that subject car was originally purchased by M/s. Walsons Services Private Limited from the dealer of OP No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 1,05,35,000/ - on 14.05.2009. The said company used the car for three years and sold it to the complainant on 18.05.2012. From this it is clear that complainant is not the original purchaser of the car. In para 9.28 of the complaint, the complainant has categorically alleged that he sold the subject vehicle to one Sandeep Mirakhur on 27.03.2015 in consideration of Rs. 20.00 lacs. The consumer complaint was initially filed by the complainant on 21.05.2015 but it was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh complaint. The fresh complaint pursuant to the liberty granted has been filed on 12.06.2015. From the above sequence of events, it is clear that before raising a consumer dispute, the complainant had passed on the ownership of the subject vehicle to one Mr. Sandeep Mirakhur. Thus the complainant on the date of filing of the consumer complaint was left with no interest in the subject vehicle, therefore, he has no locus standi to seek relief in respect of the allegations pertaining to defective car having been sold by the opposite party and failure of the opposite parties to remove the inherent defects.

THUS , in effect, we are left with consumer dispute raised by the complainant in respect of deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 2 to rectify the defects pointed out in the car. For the aforesaid alleged deficiency, the complainant has prayed for refund of Rs. 7,78,900/ - paid by him against the invoices raised by OP No. 2 with interest at the prevailing market rate. Besides that complainant has prayed for compensation to the sum of Rs. 1,70,00,000/ - on account of mental agony, stress, harassment and embarrassment as also loss of use of car for the time it was taken for repairs by the opposite party as also loss caused due to prejudice to the professional and social commitments of the complainant. From the above, it is clear that on account of allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 2, which is valued by him at Rs. 7,78,900/ -, the complainant is seeking highly disproportionate compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,70,00,000/ -.

IN the background of highly disproportionate compensation claimed by the complainant, a pertinent question arises whether this Commission or for that reason any other consumer fora is under an obligation to entertain the complaint simply going by the value of claim howsoever exaggerated it may be or the consumer forum is duty bound to examine on realistic basis whether the complaint falls within or outside its pecuniary jurisdiction? In order to find answer to the above question, it would be useful to have a look on relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act). Section 12(3) provides the procedure to be followed by the District Forum on receipt of a consumer complaint made under section 12(1) of the Act. The section envisage examination of the complaint to find out if on the basis of averments and allegations complaint is fit to be admitted and proceeded with. Such an examination would require consideration of several aspects including whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and is entitled to invoke the original jurisdiction of the concerned consumer forum. It may be noted that in view of section 22 of the Act, the above said procedure applicable to the District Forum as provided under section 12 is equally applicable to the State Commission and National Commission for disposal of consumer disputes.

SECTION 11(1), 17(1)(a) and 21(a) of the Act prescribe the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum, State Commission and National Commission. Section 11(1) of the Act provides that subject to other provisions of the Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints where the value of goods or services and the compensation if any claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs. Similarly Section 17 provides that pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission to entertain the consumer complaint shall begin where the value of the goods or services exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore. Section 21(1)(a) of the Act provides that National Commission is vested with the original jurisdiction to entertain the complaints where the value of goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees one crore.

THE demarcation of the pecuniary limits of the consumer forum at the highest level to entertain the consumer complaints based on the hierarchy of the foras appears to be a fair scheme. Ordinarily at the stage of admission of complaint, there could be no difficulty in computing the value of the complaint for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction by taking sum total of the value of the goods or services and the compensation claimed. However, the difficulty arises when the value of goods or services is too meagre but the compensation claimed is highly exaggerated and disproportionate to the said value. No doubt section 11(1), 17(1)(a) and section 21(a) of the Act which provide the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of respective foras also provide that for the purpose of assessing the value of complaint, the fora shall take into consideration the value of the defective goods or the deficient service as also the compensation claimed by the complainant. However, the quantum of compensation has to be realistic but not highly exaggerated and disproportionate to the actual relief i.e. value of actual goods and services. If the complainant is given unbridled power to claim any amount of compensation irrespective of the value of goods and services, the complainant would always have a choice to disturb the hierarchy of the system intended by the legislature and file the complaint in the forum of his choice. This in our view, cannot be permitted. In the instant case, the complainant who is senior advocate practising in the Supreme Court has claimed highly disproportionate and unrealistic compensation of Rs. 1,70,00,000/ - in respect to the value of deficient service pegged at Rs. 7,78,900/ -. This amounts to abuse of process of law. Had the complainant claimed realistic compensation, the complaint would have been within the jurisdiction of District Forum, which is upto rupees twenty lakhs.

IN view of the discussion above, we are of the opinion that this is a case of filing of inflated claim with a view to bring the case within the jurisdiction of National Commission, which is not permissible. Complaint is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction with the observation that complainant, if he so desires, may file fresh complaint on the same cause of action before appropriate forum having jurisdiction.