State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. J. P. Sharma. vs Sh. Rangi Ram. on 31 December, 2018
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 107/2017
Date of Presentation: 29.04.2017
Order Reserved on : 04.09.2018
Date of Order : 31.12.2018
......
J.P. Sharma son of Shri D.R. Sharma resident of Hari Niwas
Upper Chakkar Shimla-5 H.P.
...... Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Rangi Ram son of Shri Kirpa Ram resident of village Jadla P.O.
Kakarhatti Tehsil Kasauli District Solan H.P.
......Respondent /Complainant
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Mr. Tek Chand Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Peeyush Verma Advocate.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 22.03.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.06/2015 titled Rangi Ram Versus J.P. Sharma. Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Complainant filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
J.P. Sharma Versus Rangi Ram (F.A. No.107/2017) that opposite party is advocate by profession. It is pleaded that complainant hired services of opposite party to file declaratory suit. It is pleaded that complainant paid an amount of Rs.93100/-(Ninety three thousand one hundred) to opposite party on various dates w.e.f. 2010 to 2012. It is pleaded that opposite party told the complainant that complainant should not attend the proceedings of the court regularly because matter was civil in nature. It is pleaded that opposite party did not file the case in civil court or in the revenue court and committed deficiency in service. It is further pleaded that legal notice was also given to opposite party. Complainant sought relief of Rs.93100/-(Ninety three thousand one hundred) alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. In addition complainant sought relief of Rs.100000/-(One lac) alongwith interest @ 18% per annum for mental harassment and agony. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs.10000/-(Ten thousand) as litigation costs to complainant. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that present consumer complaint is filed by complainant as counter blast because complainant was liable to pay an amount of Rs.30000/-(thirty thousand) to opposite party in connection with case No.101/S/95/91 titled Rangi Ram Versus State decided on 24.03.1999. It is pleaded that 2 J.P. Sharma Versus Rangi Ram (F.A. No.107/2017) complicated question of facts and laws are involved in present consumer complaint and learned District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of consumer complaint. It is pleaded that present consumer complaint is barred by limitation. It is pleaded that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. On dated 28.11.2015 consumer complaint was dismissed by learned District Forum. Thereafter complainant filed appeal No.275/2015 before State Commission which was disposed of on dated 01.06.2016. State Commission set aside the impugned order of learned District Forum and remanded the complaint to learned District Forum for deciding consumer complaint on merits. Thereafter learned District Forum on dated 22.03.2017 partly allowed the complaint and ordered opposite party to pay compensation to complainant to the tune of Rs.100000/-(One lac) within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order. Learned District Forum further ordered that failing which opposite party would liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment. In addition learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would pay litigation costs to the tune of 3 J.P. Sharma Versus Rangi Ram (F.A. No.107/2017) Rs.5000/-(Five thousand) to complainant. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum opposite party filed present appeal before State Commission.
5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to pass order under Consumer Protection Act 1986 subsequently after passing of final order by disciplinary authority under Advocate Act 1961 on similar facts?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
7. Complainant filed affidavit Ext.CW1 in evidence.
There is recital in affidavit that deponent engaged opposite party as advocate for filing civil suit for declaration. There is recital in affidavit that deponent has paid the amount of Rs.93100/-(Ninety three thousand one hundred) to opposite party as advocate fee. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party did not file civil suit before civil court or revenue court and receive the above said amount in a fraudulent manner.
4
J.P. Sharma Versus Rangi Ram (F.A. No.107/2017)
8. Complainant also filed affidavit of Shri Paras Ram Ext.CW2 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent alongwith his brother Rangi Ram engaged the services of opposite party as advocate for filing civil suit for declaration. There is recital in affidavit that an amount of Rs.93100/-(Ninety three thousand one hundred) was paid to opposite party. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party did not present the case in the court and also failed to initiate proceedings regarding demarcation of land. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party failed to file the case in the civil court and received the amount in a fraudulent manner.
9. Complainant also filed affidavit of Shri Nanku Ram Ext.CW3 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent alongwith his brothers Rangi Ram and Paras Ram engaged service of opposite party as advocate. There is recital in affidavit that an amount to the tune of Rs.93100/-(Ninety three thousand one hundred) was paid to opposite party. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party failed to initiate civil proceedings. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party has received the amount in a fraudulent manner.
10. Complainant also filed affidavit of Shri Sohan Lal Ext.CW4 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that opposite 5 J.P. Sharma Versus Rangi Ram (F.A. No.107/2017) party was engaged by complainant as advocate for filing civil suit. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party received an amount of Rs.93100/-(Ninety three thousand one hundred). There is recital in affidavit that opposite party did not present the case of complainant and his brother in the court and also failed to initiate demarcation proceedings. State Commission has carefully perused all the annexures filed by complainant.
11. Opposite party filed affidavit Ext.OPW1 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that present complaint is counter blast because complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.30000/-(Thirty thousand) to opposite party in connection with case No.101/S/95/91 titled Rangi Ram Versus State of H.P decided on 24.03.1999. There is recital in affidavit that legal notice was issued by complainant without any cause of action. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant did not engage the opposite party for conducting case at Kasauli and no payment was given. State Commission has carefully perused all the annexures filed by opposite party.
12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party that complainant filed complaint against opposite party before disciplinary authority under Advocate Act 1961 and same was disposed of on 02.05.2016 6 J.P. Sharma Versus Rangi Ram (F.A. No.107/2017) by disciplinary authority and on this ground appeal filed by opposite party be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused the order of disciplinary authority passed in consumer complaint No.15/2014 on dated 02.05.2016 titled Rangi Ram Versus J.P. Sharma on similar grounds. Disciplinary Authority under Advocate Act 1961 has given finding that opposite party is not guilty of committing professional misconduct or any other misconduct as envisaged under Advocate Act 1961. Advocate Act 1961 and Consumer Protection Act 1986 are two independent Acts. Consumer Commission is not appellant authority qua order passed under Advocate Act 1961 by disciplinary authority. Order passed under Advocate Act 1961 could be challenged only under provision of Advocate Act 1961.
13. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to dispose of consumer complaint on merits in order to avoid conflicting orders under Advocate Act 1961 and Consumer Protection Act 1986 by two statutory authorities. Complainant was at liberty to challenge the order of disciplinary authority passed under Advocate Act 1961 as per provision of Advocate Act 1961. See 2018(1) CLT 312 NC M/s. Manas Constructions Versus L&T Finance Ltd. & others. 7
J.P. Sharma Versus Rangi Ram (F.A. No.107/2017) See 2006(3) CPR 339 NC titled The Installment Supply Ltd. Versus Kangra Ex-Serviceman Transport Co. & Anr.
14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that order of learned District Forum is in accordance with law and proved facts and on this ground appeal filed by opposite party be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that in view of final order passed by statutory disciplinary authority under Advocate Act 1961 placed on record it is not expedient to pass contrary order under Consumer Protection Act 1986 by other statutory authority subsequently in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point No.2: Final Order
15. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is allowed. Order passed by learned District Forum is set aside and complaint filed by complainant is disposed of with direction to complainant to seek appropriate remedy against the opposite party under Advocate Act 1961 in accordance with law because final order exonerating the opposite party qua professional misconduct has been passed by statutory disciplinary authority under Advocate Act 1961 on 02.05.2016. Order of disciplinary authority passed in complaint No.15/2014 on dated 02.05.2016 shall form part 8 J.P. Sharma Versus Rangi Ram (F.A. No.107/2017) and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member 31.12.2018 KD* 9 J.P. Sharma Versus Rangi Ram (F.A. No.107/2017) H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHIMLA Misc. Application No. : 329/2017 First Appeal No. : 107/2017 Date of Presentation of application : 29.04.2017 Date of Order in application : 31.12.2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J.P. Sharma son of Shri D.R. Sharma resident of Hari Niwas Upper Chakkar Shimla-5 H.P. ...... Applicant/Appellant/opposite party Versus Rangi Ram son of Shri Kirpa Ram resident of village Jadla P.O. Kakarhatti Tehsil Kasauli District Solan H.P. ......Non-applicant/Respondent/complainant Coram Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member Whether approved for reporting?2 Yes.
For Applicant : Mr. Tek Chand Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Peeyush Verma Advocate. JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT: O R D E R :- 1. This order shall dispose of application for
amendment of version filed by opposite party. There is recital in application that disciplinary authority under Advocate Act 1961 has passed final order and exonerated the applicant from liability of professional misconduct qua similar facts during the pendency of consumer complaint and amendment of version is essential in the ends of justice. 2 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 10
J.P. Sharma Versus Rangi Ram (F.A. No.107/2017)
2. Per contra response filed on behalf of non- applicant pleaded therein that applicant has no cause of action to file present application. It is pleaded that applicant is estopped to file present application by his act, conduct, deed and acquiescence. It is pleaded that application has been filed with malafide intention just to delay the proceedings. Prayer for dismissal of application sought.
3. We have heard learned Advocates for applicant & non-applicant and also perused the entire record carefully.
4. Following points arise for determination in present application.
1. Whether application filed by applicant for amendment of version is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of application.
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that amendment of version is essential in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice in order to dispose of appeal properly and effectively and on this ground application be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that present appeal could be disposed of properly and effectively without amendment of version. It is well settled law that proceedings Consumer Protection Act 1986 are summary proceedings and it is well 11 J.P. Sharma Versus Rangi Ram (F.A. No.107/2017) settled law that principles of natural justice are applied in proceedings conducted under Consumer Protection Act 1986.
State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to allow the application as prayed.
6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-applicant that present application has been filed at belated stage in order to fill up lacuna in the version and on this ground application be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that present appeal could be disposed of properly and effectively without allowing the application. State Commission is of the opinion that at this stage it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to allow the application as prayed. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order
7. In view of findings upon point No.1 above application for amendment of version at appellate stage is dismissed. Observations will not effect the merits of appeal in any manner. It be tagged with the main appeal after due completion. M.A. No.329/2017 is disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R)
President
31.12.2018 Vijay Pal Khachi
K.D Member
12