2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 219
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 159 OF 2011
1. GURVINDER SINGH S/o. Sh. Gurdev Singh, Kothi Opp. Vacant Plot, End Of the Street No-2, janta Nagar, City, Bathinda-151005 Punjab ...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. VICE CHANCELLOR, PUNJAB UNIVERSITY & ANR.
Chandigahr- 160 014
2. The Chairperson, D.C.S., Punjab University, Chandigarh - 160 014. ...........Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. S. K. NAIK, MEMBER For the Complainant : NEMO For the Opp.Party : NEMO Dated : 16 Sep 2011
ORDER
No one appears for the complainant despite the Registry having issued notice to the complainant. This complaint has caused us some anguish because the complainant is making repeated attempts to abuse and misuse the process of a consumer fora like the present -2-
Commission which is Apex body in the hierarchy of the consumer fora established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Earlier, the complainant had filed complaint bearing No. 97 of 2010 seeking total compensation as high as Rs. 500 crore with interest and cost, which compliant was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 30.09.2010 by observing as under:-
“On ground of delay of 7 years in issuing mark sheet of M. Com. by opposite parties, the complainant has sought the relief of increase of marks upto 80% under the Rules from 52.08% as shown in the marksheet issued on 23.06.2009 or, in alternative, to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,00/- Crores as compensation with interest and cost. Having heard the petitioner, we are of the view that the Commission is not empowered to pass direction to the opposite parties to increase the marks upto 80% nor is the complainant entitled to claim highly inflated amount of Rs.5,00 crores as prayed for. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.”
Perhaps that was not enough, the complainant has ventured to file the present complaint claiming a compensation of Rs.1000 crore based on the same cause of action. We had to spend time to go through the long complaint and the material which the complainant had filed in support of the complaint and on doing so, we are of the clear opinion that the present complaint is totally frivolous and vexatious and nothing but an attempt to over reach this Commission.
-3-
Such a compliant cannot be entertained by this Commission and we dismiss the complaint this time with costs that should prove deterrent to the complainant in approaching this Commission or any consumer fora with frivolous and vexatious complaint. We, therefore, impose a cost of Rs.1 lakh because the claim made by the complainant is Rs.1,000 crore. We would have considered for a lesser cost but in view of the claim made, we must impose cost of Rs.1 lakh to be deposited in the Legal Aid Account of this Commission.
The Registrar shall issue recovery certificate to the concerned Collector for recovery of the amount of cost by following due procedure of law even if it involved the detention of the complainant in civil imprisonment for realization of the said amount. The Registrar shall submit the compliance report of the order in chamber within four week.
R. C. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER S. K. NAIK MEMBER