Shri Sushil Gupta has filed this consumer complaint alleging that he is a French language specialist. In December 2008 the complainant applied for aster Vintage International Masters Degree Coursewhich was promoted by the Campus France India. After a telephonic interview conducted by Groupe ESA, the complainant was selected on 11.05.2009. He received Erasmus Mundus scholarship from the European Commission to pursue the said course for two year duration from 2009-2011. The complainant was asked to deposit 200 euros and he made said payment from his HDFC Bank credit card to Groupe ESA. Thereafter, he was invited to join the course in France. The masters degree course was divided into four semesters. The complainant passed first three semesters with good marks but failed twice in his last semesters rofessional Project In the last semester, the complainant was required to do internship of six months with a company and to write an academic thesis. To help the petitioner, services of tutor was assigned by Groupe ESA. It is alleged by the complainant that he failed twice in the last semester because of deficiency of service provided by the tutor in preparing thesis of required quality. It is further -1- alleged that the first internship was done by the complainant with Spanish Wine Company Vicente Gandia Pla in the subject of sales and marketing. The internship was supposed to be completed on 31.07.2011. The complainant was provided with tutor Mr. Gael Roul, Professor, Groupe ESA for writing his thesis. The tutor did not help the complainant and went on holiday. Consequently, the thesis submitted by the complainant was found to be not upto the standard. It is alleged that the petitioner even wrote to the course coordinator that he was unhappy with the services and the assistance provided by the tutor. The complainant again paid the fee of 3016 euros to Groupe ESA and started new internship in the field of sales and marketing with the hope that assistant and quality of service of new tutor would be good. This time, the complainant was assigned Madam Caroline Dusautoir to help in preparing the thesis. Even her services were not upto the mark and this was reported to the Director General of Groupe ESA. It is alleged that the complainant while preparing the thesis, followed the comments of the tutor and submitted final document to the tutor who gave OK report. Thereafter, the complainant was called for oral presentation of his thesis on 10.10.2012. After the oral presentation, the tutor told the complainant that his thesis and summary of thesis was not of the required quality and he was declared failed. According to the petitioner, he had failed only because of deficiency of service provided by the tutor assigned to him. Thus, he has filed consumer complaint and the summary of compensation claimed for is reproduced thus: S.No. Particulars Amount (euro 1. Refund for the tuition fees paid to Groupe ESA for the year 2009-2011 (Annexture 6) Rs.15,26,400 (21,200 euro) 2. Refund for the tuition fees paid to Groupe ESA for the year 2011-2012 (Annexture 12) Rs.2,17,152 (3016 euro) 3. Reimbursement of the expenses towards airfare, transport, lodging etc in October 2012 for travel to Groupe ESA, France for the oral presentation of the thesis Rs.1,08,000 (1500 euro) 4. Consequential damage for complainant future income loss at international level during his complete professional life Rs.1,08,00,000(1,50,000 euro) 5. Compensation for the physical, mental and financial harassment Rs.72,00,000 (1,00,000 euro) 6. Compensation for providing deficient services and the services of the substandard quality at international level Rs.72,00,000 (1,00,000 euro) 7. Compensation for the loss of 3 years of earning period Rs.36,00,000 (50,000 euro) 8. Litigation cost Rs.55,000 9. Total Rs.3,07,06,552 (4,26,480 euro) 2. We have heard the complainant on admission and perused the written submissions. On perusal of the summary of the compensation claimed for, we find that the petitioner in this complaint is seeking refund of the tuition fee paid by him for the period 2009-2011 and 2011-2012 besides reimbursement of expenses towards air fare, transport, lodging etc in October 2012 for travel to Group ESA France for the oral presentation of the thesis, which amounts to Rs.18,51,552/-. Against the aforesaid actual amount paid or spent by the complainant, the complainant is seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,88,55,000/- under various heads which is over and above the above noted alleged amount spent by the complainant. 3. Under the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, he Act the original complaint can be filed in the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission depending upon the value of the cost of the goods/services. Section 11, Section 17 & Section 21 provides that pecuniary jurisdiction of the respective foras. Section 11 provides that District Fora shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs. According to Section 17, State Commission can entertain the complaints where the value of goods or services and compensation claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed one crore and if the said value is more than rupees one crore, jurisdiction to entertain the original complaint lies with the National Commission as provided under section 21 of the Act. Presently, no court fee on the claims preferred before the foras concerned is payable. Therefore, tendency to defeat the hierarchy as per the scheme of the Act is always there. Thus, in our considered view, the consumer fora at various level are required to guard against the inflated claims with malafide intentions to defeat the hierarchy of the foras concerned. In the instant case, the amount allegedly spent by the complainant is only rupees eighteen lakh plus but he has added disproportionate demand of compensation of Rs.2,88,55,000/- approximately as compensation to bring this case within the jurisdiction of the National Commission. The above act of the complainant obviously is malafide with a view to defeat the scheme of the Act. Thus, the complainant is liable to be dismissed on the ground that this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction. In our view, we are supported by three members Bench of this Commission in the matter of Praveen Kumar Singhia Vs. State Bank of India 2003 INDLAW NCDRC 144. Otherwise also, on reading of the complaint, it is clear that complainant has failed in the course and he is trying to shift the blame for deficiency in service on the part of the tutor. 4. In view of the discussion above, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action before the appropriate forum. ......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... SURESH CHANDRA MEMBER