DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Consumer Complaint Case No: 05 of 2012] -------------------------------- Date of Institution : 04.01.2012 Date of Decision : 17.08.2012 -------------------------------- Sachin Raizada s/o Sh. Surjit Singh Raizada, C/o S.C.O. No.353-355, 4th Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. ---Complainant VERSUS Mrs. Anamika Mehra, Advocate, Room No.4, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. 2nd Address:- =========== Mrs. Anamika Mehra, Advocate, House No. 82-A, Sector 8, Panchkula. ---Opposite Party BEFORE: SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Complainant in person. Sh. Manu K. Bhandari, Counsel for Opposite Party. PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER 1. Complainant has filed the present complaint, against the Opposite Party on the grounds that, the Complainant who claims to be the Director of a Company under the name and style of Sarah Consultants Pvt. Limited, SCO No. 353-355, 4th Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, and having hired the services of the Opposite Party in order to pursue his case on his behalf before the Trial Court wherein he was being tried on the basis of an F.I.R. No. 315, dated 6.9.2011. The Complainant claims that on intimation from the Police, about the lodging of the F.I.R., Complainant negotiated with Opposite Party for moving a regular bail before the Trial Court on behalf of one Mr. Amanpreet Singh and anticipatory bails in the Sessions Courts at Chandigarh on behalf of the Complainant and Lt. Col. H.I.S. Virk, the other Directors of the Company, on a consideration of Rs.50,000/-. The Complainant claims that the agreed amount of consideration was paid in two installments of Rs.22,000/- and Rs.28,000/- dated 7/9/2011 and 8/9/2011, which according to the Complainant was duly accepted by the Opposite Party. At the same time, the Opposite Party was also to move a quashing petition before the Hon’ble High Court and the same was to be conducted within stipulated time of 03 days starting from 7/9/11. The Complainant alleges that the Opposite Party accept for moving a regular bail application in the court of JMIC, Chandigarh did not move any application or petition before the courts and no services were rendered as settled amongst them. Ultimately, the Complainant had to hire the services of another Advocate in both the bail as well as the quashing of F.I.R. before the Sessions Courts and the Hon’ble High Court at Chandigarh, respectively. The Complainant claims to have written a letter dated 10/10/2011 to the Opposite Party which it chose not to reply (Annexure C-1). The Complainant thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, has prayed for the following relief: - [a] To refund the fee of Rs.50,000/- paid to the Opposite Party along with interest @18% p.a. [b] To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as mental agony suffered by the Complainant; [c] To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- of hiring services of other Advocate; The complaint of the complainant is duly verified and supported by his detailed affidavit. 2. The Opposite Party has contested the claim of the complainant by filing her reply by way of affidavit, taking preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint filed by the complaint is absolutely frivolous, baseless. The averments of the present complaint being wrong are denied on the allegation that the Opposite Party did not file any anticipatory bail before the Sessions Courts. A certified copy of the anticipatory bail application and the vakalatnama executed by the Complainant are collectively annexed as Annexure OP/1. The Opposite Party has also claimed that the Complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and had tried to mislead this Forum by narrating wrong facts in the present matter and the same deserves to be dismissed, being false, frivolous and without any cause of action. The Opposite Party has also reproduced the different zimni orders passed on different dates by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh to prove her defence. On merits, the Opposite Party has repeated her preliminary objections, while replying to the each averments of the present complaint, in her para-wise reply. The Opposite Party has also categorically mentioned that the averments of the complaint are self contradictory as the professional fees was settled at Rs.50,000/- and the Complainant had paid only Rs.25,000/- in lieu of the regular bail of Shri Amanpreet Singh and the remaining fee of Rs.25,000/- was pending and was to be paid after the final decision of the anticipatory bail. The contents of para 4 are claimed to be wrong and denied, as the Complainant had paid only Rs.25,000/- on 7/9/2011. However, the Opposite Party claims that it had never agreed for filing the quashing petition as has been alleged rather during the pendency of the regular bail of Amanpreet Singh. It was suggested to his relatives that even after compromise between the parties, a separate quashing petition would be required to be filed before the Hon’ble High Court and for which a separate fee would be charged. The Opposite Party claims that it had not been deficient in service, as the anticipatory bail application No. 270 of 2011 on behalf of the Complainant was duly filed before the Court of Sessions Judge, which was assigned to Sh. Lalit Batra, ADJ, Chandigarh. A copy of the Petition, Vakalatnama and Orders, till the time the Opposite Party was not asked to give no objection by the Complainant had already been brought on record of the case. The perusal of these orders, reproduced in preliminary objections, is sufficient to fortify the case of the Opposite Party. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on her part, the Opposite Party has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs. 3. Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Party, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the Complainant and learned counsel for the Opposite Party, we have come to the following conclusions. 4. The fact with regard to the engagement of the Opposite Party for the purpose of legal services is not denied and the same is also found proved from the Vakalatnama submitted by the Opposite Party through annexed as Page 12 of the reply. However, only the signatures of the Complainant are found appended and there is no mention of the name of Amanpreet Singh, as well as H.I.S. Virk on whose behalf too the Complainant has alleged that he had hired the services of the Opposite Party. There is also no evidence to the effect that the other two persons had authorized the Complainant to hire the services of the Opposite Party on their behalf. However, the Opposite Party has annexed the certified of anticipatory bail application of the Complainant numbered 270 of 8.9.2011 annexed at Pg. 13, 15, as well as the certified copy of bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the Complainant as well as Col. H.I.S. Virk, which was finally argued by another Counsel Sh. S.P.S. Bhullar, Advocate, on 13.10.2011. The Opposite Party claims that the Complainant himself had disengaged the services of the Opposite Party and had engaged another counsel Sh. S.P.S. Bhullar to argue the bail application, which was tendered by the Opposite Party on the directions of the Complainant. The Opposite Party also contends that a duly signed no objection certificate was issued before she allowed another Counsel to appear in the said case. Thus, as the Complainant himself had not allowed the Opposite Party to contest his case, till its finality, no deficiency in service could be assessed for a job that was not allowed to be completed by the Complainant himself. 5. Even the draft of the bail application is not objected upon by the Complainant and another counsel engaged to argue the matter had not sought any amendment on the ground that the said bail application was in any manner not proper. Thus, we also do not find any deficiency in service on this score too. 6. The allegation of the Complainant that the Opposite Party was hired to also file a quashing petition before the Hon’ble High Court at Chandigarh too is not proved conclusively by the Complainant himself. Though the Complainant had tendered phone call details of his mobile number made to the Opposite Party, but the same reveals nothing, except for that he had been in conversation with the Opposite Party at that particular point of time and date. 7. The Complainant though claims to have paid the fees of Rs.50,000/- to the Opposite Party in two installments of Rs.22,000/- and Rs.28,000/- paid on 7.9.2011 and 8.9.2011 respectively and had also claimed that the same was duly accepted by the Opposite Party. However, no proof to prove this contention has been brought on record by the Complainant; whereas, the Opposite Party had herself admitted of having received Rs.25,000/- only and claims that she had rendered the services as promised to the Complainant. Furthermore, the Opposite Party had alleged that though the amount was promised to be Rs.50,000/-, and the remaining 50% of the amount of Rs.25,000/- was to be paid after the success of the bail application. The Opposite Party claims that as she was dis-engaged from her assignment by the Complainant, without waiting for the final outcome of the bail application, she did not claim the remaining promised part of the consideration. Though, unfortunately, the bail application was dismissed, by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide his order dated 13.10.2011. 8. The allegations of the Complainant that the Opposite Party had promised a successful outcome of the bail application, is totally unbelievable, as no person of able ability could promise something, that lies in the womb of future, nor there is any reason to believe that the Opposite Party had an influence in the final outcome of the bail application. The Complainant has also failed to bring any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to this effect also. 9 In the light of above observations, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The present complaint is, therefore, dismissed with no order 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 17th August, 2012 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER ‘Dutt’
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | |
