Punjab

Patiala

CC/21/451

Lalit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Adv.P.C.Sardana - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

21 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/ 451/2021
Date of Institution	:	8.10.2021
Date of Decision	:	21.4.2023

 

Lalit Kumar s/o Sh.Khub Chand aged about 52 years r/o 32a P&T colony now 1195/1, Sukhdaspura mohalla, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Adv. P C Sardana Advocate cum Notary Public aged about 62 years office at District Courts under sheds / Shed No.21, Patiala

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi,Member         

 

PRESENT:                   Sh.Lalit Kumar, complainant in person.

                             Sh.P.C.Sardana , Opposite party in person.                                    

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Lalit Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Adv. Puran Chand Sardana (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. The averments of the complainant are as follows:
3. That complainant filed a case titled Lalit Kumar Vs. Jasbir Singh in the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala through OP which was dismissed on 4.8.2021 on the ground that the same is not maintainable, because of defect in legal services rendered by the OP. Complainant sent legal notice to OP but to no effect.
4. It is averred by the complainant that he is MSC and is earning about Rs.2000/-daily. He regularly visited the court so many times  leaving behind his job, so he is entitled for compensation for causing harassment. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of complaint.
5. Upon notice OP appeared in person and filed written version contesting the complaint. It raised certain preliminary objections. On merits, it is averred that case has been contested upto the final stage of the application/case by the complainant himself and has intentionally and willfully dragged the OP into unwarranted litigations. Complainant had not paid even a single penny to the OP. After denying all other averments, OP prayed for dismissal of complaint.
6. In evidence complainant furnished his affidavit, Ex.CA alongwith documents, Exs.C1 to C7 and closed evidence.
7. OP furnished in evidence his own affidavit, Ex.OPA alongwith documents,Ex.OP1 certificate, Ex.OP2 notary practicing certificate,Ex.OP3 (1to7 pages) RCR 166,Ex.OP4 section 29-30 Advocate Act,Ex.OP5 instructions from Punjab & Haryana High Court, Ex.OP6 letter to OP by Govt. of India,Ex.OP7 proof  of POD,Ex.OP8 1993 AIR Supreme Court 1535 and closed evidence.
8. We have heard the parties present in person and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The complainant has alleged that a case titled as Lalit Kumar Vs. Jasbir Singh was filed in Industrial Tribunal, Patiala in the year 2015 in which OP was engaged as an advocate to contest the case on behalf of the complainant, copy of Vakalatnama of OP is Ex.C2. Said case was disposed of on 4^th of August 2021 with the order (Ex.C1) that the complaint is not maintainable. As such , complainant has alleged deficiency in service rendered by OP and has prayed for compensation on account of mental harassment. A notice (Ex.C6) was also served by the complainant on the OP for compensation but no fruitful purpose was served.
10. The OP in his reply has taken the preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer of the legal services offered by the OP. The OP has argued that the entire case/application had been contested and argued by the complainant himself. The OP has further argued that an Advocate is an officer of the Court and legal profession is not a trade or business, rather it is a noble profession and advocates have to strive to secure justice for their clients within legally permissible limits and norms. On this point, the OP has relied upon the judgment in the case titled as Ram Niwas Sharma Vs. State of Haryana 2003(3) R.C.R.(criminal).
11. As such, the OP has argued that the case was contested and argued by the complainant himself and the OP was not deficient.
12. We find no merit, in the case, and the same is dismissed accordingly. Parties are to bear their own costs.     
13.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  

DATED:21.4.2023

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President