BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

S.C. Khanna, W.B. 248, Ali Mohalla, Jalandhar.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

D.R. Sharma, Advocate, 7C/ 1646, Chandigarh.

                                  ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              SH. RAJINDER SINGH GILL   MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person

Sh. Jagdeep Jaswal, Adv. for OPs

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant engaged the services of OP for filing a writ petition (CWP No.15848-CAT of 2003) for which he paid him Rs.7,500/-.  It has been alleged that the OP failed to inform him the date of arguments and did not plead the grounds before the Hon’ble High Court which resulted in miscarriage of justice. It has been further alleged that even the copy of judgment was sent on 19.9.2009 which had become time barred and he could not seek remedy from the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Hence this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In his written reply the OP submitted that aggrieved against the order dated 13.1.2003 the complainant approached him for challenging the said order and accordingly CWP No.15848-CAT of 2003 was filed in which notice of motion was issued on 23.10.2003.  Thereafter the case was listed on 18.12.2003, 24.2.2004 and 27.4.2004 on which date it was admitted regarding which the complainant was informed on telephone.  It has been denied that the answering OP was responsible for the delay in hearing as the same was procedural.  It has been pleaded that the writ petition was finally listed for regular hearing on 27.4.2009 and the OP argued the matter to the best of his ability but the same was dismissed vide judgment of even date. It has been submitted that the certified copy of the judgment was prepared on 7.8.2009 and after receiving the same the complainant was informed but he failed to approach him (OP) and it was sent to the complainant which was received by him on 19.9.2009.  It has been pleaded that there was sufficient time for the complainant to move a review application for which no limitation period was prescribed and he could also have moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court for filing Special Leave Petition as the copy was received by him well before the expiry of limitation period. Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on his part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the complainant in person and the Learned Counsel for the OP and have also perused the record. 

5.             The contention of the complainant is that the Hon`ble High Court repeated the judgment of CAT ignoring grounds on pages no. 11 & 13 which means that the respondent did not plead these grounds and the High Court did not give ruling, resulting into miscarriage of justice. There is no drawback pointed out by the complainant in drafting of the petition.  At page 2 of the order dated 27.04.2009, the Hon`ble High Court has mentioned the arguments advanced by the OP which shows that all the averments taken in the petition were submitted before the Hon`ble High Court by the OP. The complainant has not specified as to what argument was not advanced by the OP in support of the case of the complainant.  It was however for the Hon`ble High Court to agree with the contentions of the OP or not.  The OP cannot be said to be deficient in rendering proper service simply because the Hon`ble High Court did not accept his contentions or did not give relief to the complainant.

6.             It is also argued by the complainant that the OP had applied for the copy of the judgment on 1.05.2009 but the same was not supplied to the complainant till 19.09.2009.  The contention of the OP is that the complainant was informed on telephone and was called to Chandigarh, however, when he failed to approach the OP, the said copy was sent to him.  The OP has not placed on file any such evidence to suggest if any telephonic call was made by OP to the complainant or he was asked to come to Chandigarh to collect the copy of the judgment. This omission on the part of the OP is not appreciable.  When the copy was received by the OP he should have immediately sent the same to the complainant and should not have called him to Chandigarh to collect the copy which could easily be sent by post. To withhold the copy of the judgment for such a long period was not proper on the part of the OP.

7.             The contention of the complainant is that he was to file a review petition before the Hon`ble High Court and thereafter SLP, which was delayed due to the withholding of the copy of the judgment by the OP.  It is true that the copy of the judgment was withheld by the OP for a pretty longtime without any justification, however it did not debar the complainant from filing the review petition or the SLP after he received the copy of the order. There is no document produced by the complainant to suggest if he filed the review petition of SLP and if the same was dismissed on account of latches or delay in the filing of the review petition/SLP.  In view of that eventuality, the complainant could allege that the damage was caused to him due to the delay in not sending the copy of the judgment to him by the OP but it is not so in the present case.

8.             The complainant has also alleged in para number 8 of the complaint that the lawyers have lost respect in society due to their actions. Infact the respect in society can be regained by the lawyers, if disciplinary action is taken promptly against the defaulting lawyers but unfortunately that aspect is lacking which gives the lawyers a free hand to misuse their position as has been done in the present case.

9.             Keeping in view the above fact that no substantial loss was caused to the complainant, we do not think it proper to allow the complaint. The complaint is accordingly dismissed.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.