DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:613 of 2010] Date of Institution : 23.09.2010 Date of Decision : 14.09.2011 --------------------------------------- Mrs. Siksha Sharma wife of Sh. Sudesh Kumar resident of #1734, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. V E R S U S Mr. Ruchin Midha, Advocate resident of House No.87, Sector 21, Chandigarh; C/o Mr. Karnian Wala, Advocate and Company 10th Floor Kasturba Marg, New Delhi. ---Opposite Party. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESI DENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: None for the complainant. Sh. Shekhar Verma, Advocate for the OP. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Smt. Shiksha Sharma has filed this complaint against Sh. Ruchin Midha (Advocate) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein for the following reliefs:- i) To pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; ii) To pay adequate sum as costs of litigation. In brief, the case of the complainant is that her landlord had filed an eviction petition against her. Though she had won the case before the Rent Controller, she lost the case before the Appellate Authority and also before the Hon’ble High Court. She wanted to file a Special Leave Petition (S.L.P) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has been further pleaded that Sh. Ruchin Middha, Advocate (OP) belongs to Chandigarh. However, he has shifted to New Delhi and has started practicing as an Advocate in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has been pleaded that Sh. Ruchin Middha, Advocate used to visit Chandigarh of and on in order to collect cases. So, while in Chandigarh, he happened to meet her. When the complainant told her about the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court against her, he impressed upon her to engage him as a counsel and assured her that he would file S.L.P before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, according to the complainant, she engaged Sh. Ruchin Middha, Advocate as counsel to file S.L.P before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and paid a fees of Rs.1 Lac. According to the complainant, later on, she came to know that Sh. Ruchin Middha, Advocate was an employee of a law firm known as M/s. Karnian Wala and Company. It has further been pleaded that the case came up for hearing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 8.5.2008 but Sh. Middha, Advocate did not appear at the hearing of the said case nor did he inform her about the date of hearing. Thereafter, the case was again fixed for hearing on 18.8.2008. On that day, Sh. Middha, Advocate did not appear. So, because of his non appearance, bailable warrants were issued against her. According to the complainant, on 15.9.2008, she visited the Hon’ble Supreme Court in compliance of the bailable warrants passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, on that day also, OP did not render any help to her in the hearing of the matter. So, she was evicted from the premises on 30.9.2008. Thus, according to the complainant, OP is deficient in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by OP, preliminary objections regarding limitation and jurisdiction have been taken. On merits, it has been pleaded that the OP had engaged the services of M/s. Karnian Wala and Company in order to file S.L.P before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the order passed by Hon’ble High Court dated 12.11.2007. The OP was an employee of the said law firm at the relevant time. The said company filed S.L.P before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2007. According to the OP, he had appeared on behalf of the complainant and because of his insistence, time was extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for vacating the premises. In these circumstances, according to OP, M/s. Karnian Wala and Company had provided the service to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service. It has further been pleaded that neither the complainant paid the arrears of rent nor did she vacate the house, so, landlord moved an application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to issue notice of the said application of the complainant. However, no notice regarding the said application was given to the answering OP or to the said law firm. According to the OP, the complainant did not appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in response to the said notice, so, bailable warrants were issued against her, regarding which no intimation was given to the OP or to the law firm. Thus, according to the OP, the matter regarding which the allegations of deficiency are being leveled, is entirely different from the matter regarding which the services of the law firm were hired. In these circumstances, according to OP, there is no deficiency in service on his part and therefore, the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. None appeared on behalf of the complainant on the date of final hearing i.e.08.09.2011 and therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in his absence. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the OP and have gone through the documents on record. 6. The first argument advanced by the learned counsel for the OP is regarding the limitation. According to the complainant, the cause of action had accrued to her for the last time on 15.9.2008 when she appeared in response to the bailable warrants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and no help was allegedly provided to her by the OP. The present complaint was filed on 23.9.2010 i.e. after a period of two years. In these circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the OP, the complaint is barred by limitation and deserves dismissal on this score alone. It is pertinent to mention here that no application for condonation of delay has been filed. As per the averments made by the complainant herself, OP did not appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 8.5.2008, 18.8.2008 and 1.9.2008. On 15.9.2008 also, OP did not provide any help to her. Thus, the last date on which the cause of action had accrued to the complainant was 15.9.2008 and as mentioned above, the complaint was filed on 23.9.2010 i.e. after expiry of a period of more than two years. In these circumstances, the complaint is barred by limitation and deserves dismissal on this score. 7. Otherwise also, S.L.P was filed at New Delhi and the complainant had engaged the services of M/s. Karnian Wala and Company, whose office is located at New Delhi. No material has been placed on record by the complainant to prove that the OP ever visited Chandigarh and his services were engaged at Chandigarh. In these circumstances, even this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate over this matter. 8. Even if the matter is considered on merits, no deficiency is made out. Admittedly, the complainant had hired the services of M/s. Karnian Wala and Company for filing S.L.P. From perusal of order dated 11.12.2007, it is apparent that SLP was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, M/s. Karnian Wala and Company had provided the service for which its services were hired. However, as the complainant did not vacate the premises and did not pay the arrears of rent, another application was moved by the landlord for which, the services of OP or M/s. Karnian Wala and Company were never hired. In these circumstances, even if the OP did not appear in the said application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at the time of the hearing of the said application, no deficiency in service is made out. 9. In these circumstances, the present complaint is dismissed with no orders as to costs. 10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 14th September 2011. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.613 of 2010 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 08.09.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed. Announced. 14.09.2011 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
