Ashutosh Mishra                                                       ----      Appellant
                Vs.
N.C.Panigrahi                                                            ----      Respondent

Before: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.P.Wadhwa, President, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K.Mehra, Member, Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member, Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member.

Justice D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)

      This appeal is by the opposite party who has felt aggrieved by the order of the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, allowing the complaint of the respondent-complainant and directing the appellant to take back the computer supplied by him to the complainant and pay back the amount of Rs.39,500/- being the cost of the computer with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of purchase till payment. Complainant in his complaint filed before the State Commission had claimed Rs.5,46,870/- as compensation comprised as under:

"A. Price of Computer System                                                  Rs. 39,500.00
Plus 18% interest from 14-4-99 till date of filing of the complaint. Rs.   2,370.00
Plus pendentelite interest @18%
B. Compensation for loss of court work                                     Rs. 50,000.00
C. Compensation for loss of reputation. mental agony & torture Rs.4,50,000.00
D. Cost for legal expenses including fees of Advocate               Rs.    5,000.00

NET TOTAL - Rs. 5,46,870.00 (Rupees five lakhs forty six thousand eight hundred seventy only)".

       In the written version filed by the appellant-opposite party, various objections were raised as to the maintainability of the complaint and also on merit. It was specifically averred that the claim was exaggerated out of all proportion to get the jurisdiction of the State Commission, complainant being an Advocate practicing in the High Court, when the dispute was squarely triable by the District Forum. In fact the objection in written version read as under:

      "That, the complainant has filed the present disputes case by on saying the pecuniary valuation in order to attract the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble State Commission which is far from imagination and therefore frivolous which is liable to be dismissed."

       On the face of it no argument is needed to see that the compensation for loss of court work, for loss of reputation, mental agony, and torture and legal expenses including fees by advocate was all without any basis and there was nothing in the complaint to support these claims. Appellant-opposite party was right in its submission that all this claim was made to get the jurisdiction of the State Commission. This question of jurisdiction was not at all adverted in the impugned order and is one of the ground of attack in the present appeal. It is, however, the case of the complainant that no such plea was raised before the State Commission during the course of argument. We are unable to accept any such contention being raised by the complainant. What we find from the impugned order of the State Commission is that it was unnecessarily overwhelmed by the complainant who it described as Senior Advocate of the High Court and also observed that it could not disbelieve his version on that ground. It is not very difficult to understand as to why the complainant, a practicing advocate in the High Court should have added up these claims to invoke the jurisdiction of the State Commission and unfortunately State Commission failed to examine the objection of the Opposite party. It has caused serious apprehension in the mind of the opposite party which should have been avoided. State Commission should have returned the complaint to be presented before the District Forum. It is rather curious that State Commission did not at all refer to various heads of compensation claimed by the complainant. In our view complainant should have been more responsible in advancing such claims being a Senior Advocate of the High Court and well versed in law. He could not by pass District Forum as he found it more convenient to come to the State Commission located near the High Court. We certainly cannot countenance such a conduct on the part of any consumer who would just hike artificially its claim for compensation to get jurisdiction of a Forum for its own convenience unmindful of all principles of propriety.

        We would not like to go into the merit of the controversy between the parties in as much as we are of the opinion that the impugned order should be set aside and matter remanded to the District Forum having jurisdiction in the matter to decide the complaint of the respondent-complainant after giving proper opportunity to the parties.

      Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the State Commission is set aside. Matter is remanded to the District Forum of the area concerned to try the same in accordance with law after observing the principles of natural justice. Appellant shall be entitled to cost of Rs. 2,000/- of this appeal.