PRASAD INDUSTRIES Vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint under Sec.17 read with Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

(2.) The complaint has been filed against the officials of the Madras Metropolitan Tele-communication Board for restoration of his phone, for waiver of the sum of Rs.21,294/- demanded by the Telephone Department and for compensation in the sum of Rs.6,50,500/-. The complaint is resisted by the.

(3.) The complaint was heard on the question of the inflated nature of the claim. The relief is for restoration of the phone and for waiver of the sum of Rs.21,294, being the telephone charges claimed by the department. But the compensation claim is Rs.6,50,500/- for which there is no rhyme or reason. Evidently it is inflated to bring the claim within the jurisdiction of this Commission. This question of inflated claim has been considered by the National Commission jn "gianprakash V/s. M. T. N. L. and Another,1993 2 CPJ 230", the Commission observed as follows: "we are in full agreement with the view taken by the State Commission that on the very facts in the complaint petition, the valuation of the relief claimed in the complaint that Rs.1,02,617/- is manifestly grossly inflated and there is every reason to believe that it has been purposely done to enable the complainant to institute the case before the State Commission because of the fact that no Court-fee is payable for institution of complaints preferred under the Act. The complaining consumers should not resort to this practice of inflating claims. Such a tendency has got to be strictly discouraged and what has been done by the State Commission is precisely correct. We confirm the order of the State Commission and dismiss this appeal. "