State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rakesh Kumar Son Of Sh. Jagan Nath vs Iqbal Singh Advocate, on 28 February, 2013
3rd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 127 of 2013
Date of institution: 6.2.2013
Date of Decision : 28.2.2013
Rakesh Kumar son of Sh. Jagan Nath, resident of B/III/453, Opposite
Government Girls High School, Jandawala Road, Barnala, Tehsil and
District Barnala.
.....Appellant
Versus
Iqbal Singh Advocate, (Oath Commissioner) Civil Courts, Barnala Tehsil
and District Barnala.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated
18.12.2012 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala.
Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Rakesh Kumar, in person PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant-Rakesh Kumar(hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 18.12.2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala(hereinafter called the 'District Forum') vide which the complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum. First Appeal No. 127 of 2013 2
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant wants to file an appeal No. 1449 of 2008 titled as "Rakesh Kumar Vs. M/s M.S. Jandu and another" before the Commission and for the said purpose he had gone to the respondent on 6.12.2008 to get his affidavit attested from the respondent, who was Oath Commissioner and working at Civil Courts, Barnala.
3. Sh. Rajinder Singh, Clerk of the respondent, Sh. Krishan Kumar s/o Major Singh, Sh. Paramjit Kaur d/o Gurcharan Singh and Smt. Veera Wanti were also present at the spot. The respondent illegally charged Rs. 50/- as attestation fee against prescribed fee of Rs. 10/-, which was opposed by the appellant but the respondent forcibly charged Rs. 50/- and even not issued the receipt of the same. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the act of the respondent for charging the excess fee against the prescribed fee amounts to unfair trade practice and prayed that the respondent may be directed to refund the excess fee and pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation.
4. It was further averred that complaint No. 20/11 on 6.1.2011 was also filed regarding the same dispute but the same was withdrawn due to compromise between the parties. The respondent had not complied with the terms of compromise and refused to provide him the services as per the compromise.
5. The District Forum dismissed the complaint of the appellant vide its order dated 31.1.2011.
6. Now the present appeal is filed on the grounds that the order of the District Forum is undue and improper due to influence of the Bar Association, the respondent after passing of the impugned order used abusive words to the appellant and also beaten badly with punches and kicks before the people in general, the appellant also lodged a complaint with the Police Station and also filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial First Appeal No. 127 of 2013 3 Magistrate, Barnala, as such, the order of District Forum is liable to be set- aside and prayed for the acceptance of the complaint.
7. It is admitted case of the appellant that complaint No. 20 of 2011 was filed by the appellant against the respondent for the same cause of action the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn by the appellant due to compromise between the parties on 31.1.2011.
8. The appellant again filed complaint No. 323/2012 on 4.12.2012 on the same cause of action alleging that the respondent had not complied with the compromise which was effected between the parties.
9. It is admitted case of the appellant that first complaint was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the statement of the appellant dated 31.1.2011 and the order passed by the District Forum is at page No. 17 of the appeal file.
10. As per settled law the second complaint of the appellant was not maintainable on the same cause of action and was liable to be dismissed. If the respondent had not complied with the compromise effected between the parties then the remedy was available to the appellant to file execution application before the District Forum.
11. We have also perused the order of the District Forum. The dispute between the parties was arisen on 6.12.2008 and the present complaint was filed on 4.12.2012 i.e. not within two years as per Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No application for condonation of delay was also filed by the appellant before the District Forum, as such, the complaint of the appellant was also liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
12. The order of the District Forum is legal one and there is no ground to interfere with the same. There is also no merit in the appeal for the issuance of notice to the respondent, as such, the appeal is dismissed in limine. The order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. First Appeal No. 127 of 2013 4
13. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 20.2.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
February 28, 2013. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
as Member