Consumer Act not meant to enrich complainants: Panel
The object of the Consumer Protection Act is not to enrich consumers unjustly, the Delhi State Commission has said.
By PTI |
NEW DELHI: The object of the Consumer Protection Act is not to enrich consumers unjustly, the Delhi State Commission has said while snubbing a DDA shop applicant who sought an "exaggerated" compensation from the civic agency for being denied possession of the property.
"In our view the amount claimed in the complaint is highly exaggerated, whimsical and fanciful," Commission President Justice J D Kapoor said.
The Commission, also comprising of member Rumnita Mittal, said "Even if the allegations are presumed to be correct, still the amount of compensation would not exceed Rs 20 lakhs." Delhi resident Nishant Rai Andrew filed a complaint with the Commission, seeking nearly Rs 25 lakhs as compensation for his alleged harassment at the hands of the land development agency.
The Commission also refused to entertain Andrew's complaint which sought directions to the DDA to hand over possession of the shop to him. "So far as directions for handing over possession are concerned they are not part of compensation for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction," Justice Kapoor observed.
The State Commission, meanwhile, transferred the complaint to the District Forum with the direction to dispose of the matter speedily. Andrew, who is physically-challenged, alleged he suffered a loss due to non-allotment of shop despite having deposited Rs 3.50 lakhs in 2001 with the DDA.
"In our view the amount claimed in the complaint is highly exaggerated, whimsical and fanciful," Commission President Justice J D Kapoor said.
The Commission, also comprising of member Rumnita Mittal, said "Even if the allegations are presumed to be correct, still the amount of compensation would not exceed Rs 20 lakhs." Delhi resident Nishant Rai Andrew filed a complaint with the Commission, seeking nearly Rs 25 lakhs as compensation for his alleged harassment at the hands of the land development agency.
The Commission also refused to entertain Andrew's complaint which sought directions to the DDA to hand over possession of the shop to him. "So far as directions for handing over possession are concerned they are not part of compensation for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction," Justice Kapoor observed.
The State Commission, meanwhile, transferred the complaint to the District Forum with the direction to dispose of the matter speedily. Andrew, who is physically-challenged, alleged he suffered a loss due to non-allotment of shop despite having deposited Rs 3.50 lakhs in 2001 with the DDA.
Download
The Economic Times Business News App for the Latest News in Business, Sensex, Stock Market Updates & More.
The Economic Times Business News App for the Latest News in Business, Sensex, Stock Market Updates & More.
Download
The Economic Times News App for Quarterly Results, Latest News in ITR, Business, Share Market, Live Sensex News & More.
The Economic Times News App for Quarterly Results, Latest News in ITR, Business, Share Market, Live Sensex News & More.
ADVERTISEMENT
