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

========

Inder Singh, s/o S.Ram Sigh, r/o of V&PO Wadala Granthian, Tehsil Batala, Distt. Gurdaspur.

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

Ranjan Lakhanpal Advocate, Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh and r/o #97, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh

                                  ……Opposite Party

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

              The present complaint was filed by the complainant alleging that a criminal case under section 307 IPC and 3/4/5 TDPA Act was registered against his son Major Singh on 12.03.1989 in police station Hajipur.  He had engaged the OP for the defence of the said case and paid him Rs.30,000/- as fee by borrowing the said amount from commission agent Basant Singh. According to him even after taking such a huge amount, the OP did not do anything in the case so far. He filed a complaint against the OP before the Bar Court (Council?) of Punjab and Haryana but of no avail as the same was dismissed on 4.08.2009. He therefore filed the present complaint against the OP claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

2]           We have heard the complainant in person on the point as to whether the complaint should be admitted for further hearing or not.  We are of the opinion that the complaint is barred by time and should not be admitted.

3]           It is pertinent to mention that the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a statutory obligation to have a preliminary screening as to whether the complaint filed before it is maintainable. The only stipulation is that the complaint should not be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the complainant, which in the present case has been provided. The law on this point is very much settled and in the recent decision given by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Fon-Ess India (P) Ltd. Vs. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Original Petition No.19405 of 2000, decided on 14th July, 2006 and reported as 2007 CTJ 8 (Kerala High Court) (CP) it has been specifically held that admission of a complaint before a District Forum or the State/National Commission and appeal before the State/National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not automatic.  The Forum/Commission has to consider the maintainability before admitting it and issue its notice to the opposite party/respondent.

4]           In order to prove that the complainant had engaged the OP as an advocate, the complainant has produced certified copy of the petition C.O.C.P. 1490 of 2004. His contention is that the OP did not pursue the said C.O.C.P. and the same was dismissed on 25.04.2005 in default. Certified copy of the order is now marked as Annexure C-1.  According to him he filed an application for restoration of the said petition but again the OP made a statement before the Hon`ble High Court on 6.12.05 withdrawing the said petition, thus leaving the complaint without any relief. A perusal of order Annexure C-2 shows that the complainant withdrew the petition in view of the reply filed by the respondent i.e. Narinder Bhargava, IPS, SSP Gurdaspur.  A copy of the reply filed by SSP Gurdaspur is on file and has now been exhibited as Annexure C-3.  In the said reply it is mentioned that the allegations leveled in the main petition were relating to village Wadala Granthian which falls in the jurisdiction of District Batala but the SSP of Batala had not been made a party. SSP, Gurdaspur in Annexure C-3 has shown ignorance about the whereabouts of the son of the complainant, as he was not concerned at all with the said police station or the registration of the FIR against him.  It was therefore not appropriate to proceed against SSP Gurdaspur and the OP rightly withdrew the petition against him.

5]           Needless to mention that a petition before the Hon`ble High Court is to be filed on the instructions of the petitioner/ complainant in the present complaint.  If he wanted to proceed against SSP Gurdaspur, the information as to which SSP was concerned was to be given by him to his counsel.  If he gave wrong information with respect to the SSP, as to whether it should be against SSP Gurdaspur or SSP Batala, the Counsel cannot be held liable or deficient in service, if he acted in accordance with the instructions of the complainant.

6]           The present complaint otherwise also is barred by time.  The order Annexure C-2 was passed on 6.12.05, if there was any deficiency in service, the complainant was required to approach this Forum within 2 years therefrom.  The present complaint filed on 22.12.09 is therefore barred by time.

7]           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this compliant.  The same cannot be admitted for regular hearing and is dismissed in limine. 

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