Harekrishna Biswas vs H.D. Nautiyal

DR . Harekrishna Biswas has filed the present consumer complaint against Sh. H.D. Nautiyal, the then Registrar of NCDRC, Sh.S.Hanumantha Rao, Deputy Registrar, Secretary to the Union of India, Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution and the Chairman of Central Protection Council seeking several reliefs including the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/ - per day we.f. 04.03.2013 till the date of payment with compound interest of 24% per annum. The consumer complaint was filed on 27.11.2013. Therefore, the relief claimed amounts to more than Rs.12 crores.

THE complaint is not happily worded. However, on reading of the complaint, it appears that complainant had filed two petitions describing those as revision petitions under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ''the Act '') on 09.11.2012 and 03.12.2012 respectively which were received by the Registry of this Commission vide diary numbers 21966 and 23235 of year 2012. Grievance of the complainant is that opposite parties no. 1 & 2 deliberately registered those petitions as appeals and not the revision petitions and they did not give proper receipt having received those petitions from the complainant. The complainant also alleged that on 04.03.2013, he visited the Registry of this Commission for filing one other revision petition but the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 declined to accept said revision petition. Thus, the complainant was compelled to send the petition by speed post which was received by the Hon ''ble President on 05.03.2013. Even said petition was also wrongly registered as an appeal.

IT is the further case of the complainant that on 04.03.2013, complainant wanted to file one consumer complaint in this Commission but one Shri S.Vishwanathan, Assistant Registrar demanded bribe and opposite parties no. 1 & 2 misbehaved with him and declined to accept the complaint. Thus, the complainant was compelled to send that complaint to the President by speed post.

THE complainant has also alleged that on 29.04.2013 he submitted one another complaint in the Registry of this Commission which was received by the receiving section vide diary number 9467. It is alleged that alongwith the complaints, the requisite fees were deposited but neither the acknowledgment of receipt of complaint nor any cash memo was given. Besides above, the complainant also alleged that opposite parties no. 1 and 2 are involved in giving illegal threats to him and they are also involved in changing the contents, statements, particulars of the orders which have been pronounced by the Hon ''ble Benches. They also pressured him to engage a counsel suggested by them to contest his case.

ON careful perusal of the complaint, we find that complaint does not disclose any cause of action. So far as two revision petitions and one of the complaints are concerned, the complainant himself has pleaded that he was given diary number. Therefore, his plea to the effect that he has not been given the receipt regarding receipt of those revision petitions and the complaint is unfounded. As regards one other revision petition and the other complaint which are subject matter of this case, it is the complainant ''s own case that those were sent at the address of the President, National Commission by speed post. All the above five matters have been duly registered in this Commission. No doubt the petitioner filed three petitions describing those as revision petitions and those have been registered by the Registry as First Appeals but said act cannot be termed as deficiency in service. As regards other allegations, we find that those allegations are in the nature of administrative complaints of misconduct against the officials of this Commission and said misconduct can be dealt on the administrative side and cannot be termed as deficiency in service as envisaged under the scheme of Consumer Protection Act. Otherwise also, the petitioner in this complaint is seeking highly disproportionate and inflated compensation qua the allegation of deficiency in service against the opposite parties. On perusal of the prayer clause, it is seen that complainant is seeking compensation @ Rs.6,00,000/ - per day w.e.f. 04.03.2013 till the date of payment with compound interest of 24% per annum. The complaint was filed on 27.11.2013. Therefore, the principal amount of relief claimed is more than Rs.12.00 crores, which by no means is proportionate to the alleged deficiency narrated in the complaint. It is evident that complainant has inflated the amount of compensation sought with a view to bring his complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. This conduct on the part of the complainant amounts to abuse of process of law with a view to avoid the hierarchy of foras in terms of pecuniary jurisdiction as provided in the scheme of the Act, which cannot be permitted. In view of the above, complaint being devoid of cause of action is rejected. No order as to costs.