RAGHAV PRATAP SINGH Vs. APPLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No. 1, Jaipur ('the State Commission') in Complaint no. 118 of 2018. The State Commission has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the claim has been exaggerated.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant. Learned counsel for the appellant states that an Apple mobile phone was purchased for a sum of Rs.60,000.00 approximately. However, the phone started malfunctioning within a period of six months from the date of purchase. The warranty period was for one year. Therefore, the complaint was filed before the State Commission. Rs.90 lakh was sought as compensation in the complaint. The learned counsel has stated that as per section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the amount of compensation demanded is to be added to the value of the goods and services to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction, accordingly, the complaint was filed before the State Commission. However, the State Commission has observed that unreasonably inflated compensation has been claimed by the complainant and, therefore, the complaint has been dismissed.

(3.) It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that compensation has no relation with the price of the product rather compensation depends on the sufferings gone through by the complainant and therefore, without examining the evidence, the State Commission should not have observed this fact.