The main legal point established in the judgment is that complaints should not be dismissed solely based on the claim amount without considering the merit of the case, and proper procedure as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, should be followed.

Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—The appellant/complainant Shri Darshan Singh Ahuja son of Shri Amar Singh resident of House No. 5432/3, Mani Majra Housing Complex, Mani Majra, U.T., Chandigarh purchased two bottles of Sherbet Rooh-Afzah from respondent No. 2 M/s. Ravi Stores, Shop No. 20-21, Sector 14, Punjab University Campus Market, Chandigarh and manufactured by respondent No. 1-M/s. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories, Hamdard Building, 2A/3, Aaf Ali Road, New Delhi, which was manufactured and markets in the month of April, 2002. One of the two bottles was used after it was purchased and drinking of Sherbet gave some different taste to the family members of the complainant and other persons who took the same. The second bottle of Sherbet Rooh-Afzah, however, was lying with the complainant and the same was taken out of the shelf for use in the year before the filing of the complaint. When the second bottle was taken out then it was detected that Sherbet had turned to jet black from the usual pink colour and the liquid inside the bottle gave an appearance of thick tarcoal. The appellant apprehended that the contents of the bottle had become toxic and poisonous and, therefore, unfit for human consumption. The matter was taken up by the complainant with Mr. M. Waseen, Local Sales Supervisor of respondent No. 1 who promised to look into the matter but he also did not respond to the grievances of the complainant who then contacted the responsible person of respondent No. 1 and made several telephone calls at Delhi as well as Lal Kuan and spent a sum of Rs. 400/- on telephone calls. It was alleged that the date of booking printed on the bottle mentioned as 5/2002 along with a remark “Best Before 24 Months”, which mean that the contents could be consumed up to April, 2004. A legal notice dated 9.10.2003 was served on the respondent No. 1 through Counsel Mr. Rajinder Singh Raj, Advocate, which was replied by the respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 28.10.2003.

2. In the reply to the legal notice, the respondent No. 1 accused the complainant of tampering with the cap of the bottle, which was sealed but provided no relief to the grievances of the appellant, which led to the filing of the complaint alleging that the conduct of respondent No. 1 was wholly unprofessional and against the ethics of the trade and it amounted to deficiency in service and criminal breach of trust. The complainant prayed for exemplary compensation of a sum of Rs. 2 lacs with interest up to the date of actual payment. The complaint was supported by an affidavit of the complainant Shri Darshan Singh Ahuja who annexed copy of legal notice (Annexure A-1) and photocopy of the reply letter dated 28.10.2003 (Annexure A-2) sent by the respondent No. 1-M/s. Hamdard (Wakf) Limited.

3. The District Forum dismissed the complaint in limine without issuing notices to the respondents on the ground that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice committed by the respondent. Apart from it, it was held that the appellant had claimed compensation, which was of a inflated sum and was irrational if not ludicrous and relied on the case of Dr. Arun Jain v. Thai Airways International Ltd., II (2003) CPJ 201 (NC)=2003 CTJ 244 (CP) (NCDRC), and held that the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi [for short hereinafter referred to as the National Commission] ruled that the consumer complaints making preposterous claims should be thrown out at the very threshold. Applying the said ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission, the complaint was dismissed.

4. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order dated 8.3.2004, the complainant filed this appeal. Notice of appeal was issued to the respondents. Respondent No. 1 appeared through Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate whereas respondent No. 2 appeared through Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate. The record of the complaint case was summoned. We have heard the learned Counsels for the