State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jit Singh Bhatti vs Iqbal Singh Narang on 28 January, 2020
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.155 of 2019
Date of Institution : 20.03.2019
Date of Reserve : 09.01.2020
Date of Decision : 28.01.2020
Jit Singh Bhatti, Advocate aged about 80 years Chamber No.66-C,
Old Bar District Courts, Amritsar (M): 9779705062
....Appellant/complainant
Versus
1. Iqbal Singh Narang, Advocate, Chamber No.35-A, Mobile
988861555, District Courts, Amritsar.
2. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate, High Court Chandigarh Bar
Room No.2, Chandigarh Making frequent visit on every
Saturday to collect litigation work from Amritsar to file in the
Hon'ble High Court, Chandigarh and remained present on every
Saturday in Chamber No.37-A, C/o Rajinder Singh Mann,
Advocate, District Courts, Amritsar.
....Opposite parties/Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated
20.02.2019 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr.Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No
First Appeal No 155 of 2019 2
Present:-
For the appellant : None
For respondent No.1 : Sh.Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : Sh.K.C.Singla, Advocate
RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL, MEMBER
ORDER
The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 20.02.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short, 'District Forum'), whereby the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') filed by the complainant was dismissed.
It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum. Facts of the Case
2. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint are that the complainant is practicing as Advocate having 41 years of practice at the Bar Amritsar and due to old age could not handle his own cases, therefore, the complainant hired the services of respondents. Initially, the complainant filed a suit for rendition of accounts against Mahant Inder Dass (now deceased) represented by Gurharan Dass Mahant under the titled as Jit Singh Vs. Mahant Inder Dass regarding his legal fee as the complainant had dealt cases of Akhara for about 16 years and the court of Ms.Manila Chugh, CJJD, Amritsar decreed the suit and passed partly preliminary decree with costs on 31.10.2010 for an amount of Rs.87,150/- as legal fee payable to the complainant. An appeal First Appeal No 155 of 2019 3 was filed by Gurcharan Dass Mahant and the complainant was summoned. In the appeal respondent No.1 was engaged in the Appellate Court of Addl. District Judge. It was further averred that respondent No.1 advanced the arguments in the absence of the complainant by not informing him when the case was adjourned. The complainant gave the citations to respondent No.1 to produce before the court, which he never produced in the Appellate Court nor addressed his arguments in proper manner, resulting the appeal of Mahant Gurcharan Dass etc. Vs. Jit Singh Advocate was allowed. Thereafter, the complainant engaged Balbir Singh Jaswal, respondent No.2 to file appeal in the Hon'ble High Court at Chandigarh and entrusted the appeal to be filed as Jit Singh Vs. Mahant Gurcharan Dass etc. The suitable fee was paid to respondent No.2, however, he failed to address the arguments in a legal manner, resulting dismissing the appeal of the complainant. A complaint was also filed against the respondents in the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana but the Bar Council, dismissed the complaint of the complainant. The act and conduct of the opposite parties resulted into suffer a huge financial loss, loss of time and mental agony. It was prayed to allow the complainant by giving compensation to the tune of Rs.3 lacs to the complainant. Defence of the Opposite Parties
3. Upon notice opposite party No.1 appeared and filed his reply, whereas opposite party No.2 had not appeared despite services, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.10.2017.
First Appeal No 155 of 2019 4
4. Opposite party No.1 filed his reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint is time barred and not maintainable as per law. The complainant should have availed the remedy in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The answering opposite party has not taken any professional fee from the complainant and provided his service being a colleague Advocate. The case was decreed in favour of the complainant, however, the appeal was dismissed on 15.01.2013. It was further contended that the complainant was never restrained to produce any citation in the Court. The complainant himself not appeared before the Court after giving the information. The complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, the answering opposite party is more senior than the complainant in legal practice and in the age. The case of the complainant was suitably contested with the citations as per the instructions of the complainant but the complainant did not appear intentionally. The complaint filed against opposite parties No.1 & 2 was dismissed 'being no substance in the complaint' by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The complainant is habitual complainant and blackmailing the replying opposite party as well as to his own client for fetching money. Rest all the averments as averred by the complainant in his complaint were denied. It was prayed to dismiss the complaint. Evidence of the Parties
5. The complainant in support of his contentions tendered his affidavit as Ex.C-1, copy of order dated 31.05.2010 as Ex.C-2, copy of documents courts fee as Ex.C-3, copy of order dated First Appeal No 155 of 2019 5 15.01.2013 as Ex.C-4, copy of order dated 15.01.2013 as Ex.C-5 and copy of plaint as Ex.C-6.
6. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 has filed his affidavit as Ex.OP1/1.
Finding of the District Forum
7. The District Forum, which after going through the evidenced tendered by both the parties and hearing learned counsel appearing on their behalf, dismissed the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal is by the appellant/complainant.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents as none has appeared on behalf of the appellant, however, the appellant has filed his written arguments. We have also carefully gone through the records of the case.
Contentions of the Parties
9. As per the written arguments, the appellant contended that the order passed by the District Forum is against the facts on the file and is liable to be set aside. It has been further contended that the respondent No.1 was engaged by the appellant/complainant and paid Rs.5,000/- as fees. However, respondent No.1 failed to explain the fiduciary relationship before the court of Sh.Sham Lal, ADJ, Amritsar and further failed to explain the lower court judgment. The authority/citation given to respondent No.1 has not been produced before the Court. The decree was spoiled by the parties with intention to cause harassment and mental worries. Both the respondents have failed to argue the case properly, resultantly the appellant suffered the loss. The respondents have First Appeal No 155 of 2019 6 negligently handle the case of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service. Finally, it is prayed to allow the appeal and grant the relief as claimed in the complaint by setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Forum.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued that the District Forum has rightly dismissed by complaint filed by the appellant/complainant after going through the evidence available on record. It has been argued that opposite party No.1/ respondent No.1 contested the suit before the District Court at Amritsar and got the same decided in favour of the complainant. It clearly shows that there was no mala fide intention or negligence or professional deficiency on the part of the opposite party No.1 On the other hand, the appeal was filed by respondent No.2 before the Hon'ble High Court, which was dismissed. The complainant cannot file a single complaint on two different cause of action. The order passed by the District Forum is justified as per law. There is no need of any kind of interference in it. Finally, it is prayed to dismiss the appeal with costs.
11. Respondent No.2 vehemently argued that the order passed by the District Forum is only after going through the record of the case. The case filed against respondent No.2 is false. Respondent No.2 filed his affidavit in the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana. The appellant/ complainant intentionally gave the wrong address of respondent No.2, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte. The appellant never paid any fee to the respondent and he just paid the misc. charges to file the appeal. Respondent No.2 neither First Appeal No 155 of 2019 7 demanded nor offered any fee from the appellant. The District Forum has passed a well reasoned order and rightly dismissed the complaint. The allegation with regard to citation of law is absolutely false. Respondent No.2 cited the law on the point before the Hon'ble High Court but it is for the court to pass appropriate order on the facts of each case. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.2. The appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed with costs being devoid of merits.
12. Admitted facts are that the appellant/complainant filed a suit for rendition of accounts against Mahant Inder Dass (now deceased) representated by Gurcharan Dass Mahant titled Jit Singh Vs. Mahant Inder Dass in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Amritsar, wherein opposite party No.1 represented the complainant as counsel and the same was decreed (Ex.C-2) in favour of the appellant/complainant Gurcharan Dass Mahant preferred appeal in the court of ADJ at Amritsar. The Appellate Court of ADJ set aside the judgment and decree of Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) accepted the appeal, resultantly dismissed the suit of the appellant/complainant. The appellant/complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No.1/opposite party No.1 who appeared on behalf of the appellant/complainant in the Appellate Court of ADJ. However, there is no such evidence brought in record by the appellant/complainant to evident that the case was wrongly presented by the respondent/opposite party No.1 in the Appellate Court. The judgment, Ex.C-4 delivered by the Court of ADJ, First Appeal No 155 of 2019 8 accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit of the complainant on holding as under:
"18. ......the suit of the plaintiff for rendition of account is not maintainable particularly when he has specifically pleaded in the plaint itself that defendant paid Rs.7850/- and Rs.19,000/- to him against receipt out of outstanding legal fee of Rs.1,14,000/- and a sum of Rs.87,150/- remained unpaid. Thus, when the plaintiff himself had the knowledge about the specific amount outstanding against the defendant, then his suit for rendition of account is not maintainable as he was required to file suit for recovery of the said out-standing amount against the defendant."
13. From the above, it is crystal clear that opposite party No.1 represented the complainant in suit for rendition of account before Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Amritsar firstly and the same was decided in favour of the complainant, which clearly shows that there was no mala fide intention or negligence or professional deficiency on the part of respondent No.1/ opposite party No.1 and further also represented the complainant in appeal before the Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar who set aside the order of Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.). Learned counsel argued only as per the evidence available on record and it is for the Courts to decide the suits and appeals as per law. If the appeal is decided against the complainant in which opposite party No.1 represented him, it does not mean that there is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. Otherwise also, complainant himself is an Advocate, he should have been present at the spot and should have produced the authorities whichever he wanted to cite. So far First Appeal No 155 of 2019 9 as relying on authorities is concerned, it is to be determined by the Presiding Officers of the Courts of law. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. Otherwise also, the client must be present when the case is called and assist the counsel if he so desire. So far as opposite party No.2 is concerned, he was a counsel in the High Court and filed RSA, Ex.C-6, which was also dismissed and held that suit for rendition of account was not maintainable and complainant should file the suit for recovery. It is a common practice that to avoid the payment of the court fee, the counsel prefer suit for rendition of accounts. Be that as it may the fact remains that the complainant who is an Advocate of a vast experience can never blame the counsel who represented him. If it can at the most be a deficiency or professional misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961, for which the remedy was filing of complaint before the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana which the complainant filed and dismissed. In these circumstances, no complaint could have been filed as both the opposite parties have duly represented the complainant to their best ability and wisdom and it is not a case that they did not appear before the Courts below i.e. Civil Court, Appellate Court or High Court.
14. As per Annexure R-2/3 & R-2/4 the respondent No.2/ opposite party No.2 contested RSA bearing No.3662 of 2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana citing citation laid down in the case of K.C.Sharma Versus Govt of State of Kerla etc. reported in 2006(1) CCC P.602. But the Hon'ble High Court First Appeal No 155 of 2019 10 dismissed the appeal observing that the suit for rendition of account was not maintainable. The relevant para of the judgment, Ex.C-6 is placed in verbatim:-
"As and when the lawyer is engaged on behalf of the client, it appears that he has to submit the bill and is required to maintain the same. Once he knew that he had appeared in number of cases on behalf of his client and there is nothing due towards him, though fees of the Advocate may vary from case to case depending upon the nature of the cases, it is always fixed as per the labour involved in each case. Thus, in my view, suit for rendition of account was not maintainable. I am in agreement with the findings rendered by the lower Appellate Court in holding that the suit for recovery was required to be filed and not for rendition of account."
15. In view of the above, it cannot be said that respondent No.2 and opposite party No.2 did not produce any citation before the Hon'ble Court. Also, in both the judgments dismissing the cases for rendition of account, the Court of ADJ and also the Hon'ble High Court has nowhere recorded any observations against the counsels i.e. respondents / opposite parties engaged by the appellant/complainant. There is no evidence on record that that the appellant / complainant has paid any fees to the respondents/ opposite parties.
16. The appellant / complainant has already filed the complaint before the State Bar Council, i.e. Punjab and Haryana Bar Council, who has examined the issue and found no substance and dismissed the same.
First Appeal No 155 of 2019 11
17. In addition, perusal of the complaint filed the appellant/ complainant in the District Forum would show that allegations of deficiency in service has been made against opposite party No.1 in context of service hired for filing civil suit at Amritsar and defending the appeal before the Appellate Court and against respondent No.2/ opposite party No.2 in context of services hired for filing RSA before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. It is evidently clear that there are two separate allegedly cause of action, which cannot be decided in a single complaint.
18. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed and the order passed by the District Forum is upheld.
19. This appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER January 28th ,2020 parmod