National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Nandlal Lohariya vs Jagdish Chand Purohit & 2 Ors. on 25 November, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 380 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 31/08/2018 in Appeal No. 582/2018 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. NANDLAL LOHARIYA S/O. DEVRAM LOHARIYA, R/O. AHIR MOHALLA WATER WORKS ROAD, NATHU BHAI KE CHUNE KA BHATTA PRATAPGARH RAJASTHAN ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. JAGDISH CHAND PUROHIT & 2 ORS. S/O. BHAGWATI PRASAD SHARMA, ALIAS LALAJI, NAI ABADI, PRATAPGARH RAJASTHAN 2. SHRI MURLIDHAR JAT S/O. KRISHAN KUMAR JAT, R/O. GOPAL GANJ, DISTRICT-PRATAPGARH RAJASTHAN 3. SHRI GOPAL LAL SHARMA, S/O. BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA, C/O. JAGDISH PUROHIT ADVOCATE NATI ABADI, PRATAPGARH RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Priyanshu Upadhyay, Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 25 Nov 2019 ORDER
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 31.8.2018 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal -2- Commission against the order dated 13.7.2018 whereby his appeal was dismissed. The District Forum vide its order dated 13.7.2018 had also dismissed the complaint of the petitioner.
2. This order is impugned before me on the ground that there was deficiency in service on the part of the advocates who were engaged to contest complaints Nos.101/2014, 102/2014 & 01/2015. It is submitted that findings of the Fora below is illegal because they have reached to the wrong conclusion.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. Admittedly, the petitioner (hereinafter called as 'the complainant') filed complaints Nos.101/2014, 102/2014 & 01/2015 before the District Forum, Pratapgarh against BSNL. All the three complaints of the complainant were dismissed vide order dated 30.6.2016 on merit. After dismissal of the complaints, he filed a complaint against his advocates, alleging deficiency on their part in contesting his case before the District Forum, Pratapgarh. His contentions before the District Forum were that all the three advocates had not performed their duties properly. The complaints were filed with a delay of 365 to 630 days. They did not obtain the call details, copy of the complaint register using the right under Right to Information Act and documents like telephone bills and other important documents were not presented. Even the affidavit of the complainant -3- was not filed and the arguments were not properly done by his advocates. It is because of this reason that all the three complaints were dismissed.
4. On these contentions, it is stated that since his advocates had not done their duties properly, it amounted to deficiency in service and asked for a compensation of Rs.15 lakhs from them. It was also submitted that he paid a fee of Rs.30,000/- to them.
5. From perusal of the file, it is apparent that complaints Nos.101/2014, 102/2014 & 01/2015 which were dismissed vide order dated 30.6.2016 were not dismissed on account of non-prosecution, but were dismissed on merit. There is no observation of the District Forum that the counsels representing the complainant in those complaints had lacked in discharge of their duties as an advocate. It is also apparent that upon dismissal of his complaints, the complaint had not challenged the final order passed on 30.6.2016 before any Forum rather filed the complaint against his advocates.
6. From perusal it is also apparent that the contention that the complaints were filed with huge delay and hence dismissed, finds no support from the final order dated 30.6.2016 because his three complaints were not dismissed on account of delay, but were dismissed on merit. The Fora below have also rightly held that in the Vakalatnama signed by the complainant, there is no mention that it is the job of his counsel whom he has engaged, to collect the documents by -4- moving an application under Right to Information Act and then file it. For a below have rightly concluded that it is the job of the complainant to collect all the documents and provide it to his advocate so that the same could be filed in support of his case. The Fora below have also rightly held that even giving the evidence by way of affidavit is the job of the complainant and he should have contacted his advocate for the said purpose and get the affidavit of evidence prepared. Simply because his complaints have been dismissed on merits, it cannot be presumed that his advocates have failed in discharge of their duties as an advocate. It is also apparent that he had executed the Vakalatnama only in favour of Jagdish Chand Purohit i.e. respondent No.1 and had not issued any Vakalatnama in favour of other two respondents. He had dragged them into this litigation without having any privity of contract or service promised by them. I found no error in the impugned order. The Fora below have rightly exercised their jurisdiction. There is no perversity in the order. It also cannot be said that any miscarriage of justice has been caused in this matter.
5. Revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed in limine.
......................J DEEPA SHARMA PRESIDING MEMBER