DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA                                                  

                               Complaint no. 109                                                                    Instituted on:  15.05.2014

                                                          Decided on:    04.05.2015

Mr. Balkar Singh aged about 40 years son of Sh. Jagga Singh proprietor of M/s Balkar and Bittu Construction, Engineers and Contractors, Nathana District Bathinda.  

                                                …. Complainant.       

                                         Versus

Raj Kumar Bansal Alias Raji, Advocate, resident of Rawarian Mohalla, Dhanaula, practicing at District Courts, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.

      ….Opposite party.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Shri Preet Mohninder Advocate                          

FOR THE OPP. PARTY     :      Shri N.K.Singla, Advocate                     

Quorum

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Karnail Singh, Member

Vandna Sidhu, Member

ORDER:   

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

1.             Balkar Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that he entered into a contract with Lotus Infrabuild Limited, Raikot Road, Barnala, a sub group of Trident Group vide dated 15.06.2007 for the construction of RCC Storage Tower ( 2 Nos. Broke Tower  & Black Water Tower) at Paper Machine Dhaula Site. The total contract value was of Rs.8,50,000/-.  There was an arbitration clause in the said agreement at serial number 9, according to which it was mandatory for the party who has any grievance from the other party to approach the sole arbitrator for the redressal of the grievance. A dispute arose between the complainant and Lotus Infrabuild Limited. The complainant approached  to the OP  for filing his case before the Arbitrator but the said advocate misguided to  the complainant to file a suit for recovery  instead of  petition before the Arbitrator and he took undue advantage of the fiduciary relationship  of  us and by taking the undue advantage he allured to the complainant to file a civil suit for recovery.  The OP has also charged a sum of Rs.50,000/- as his counsel fee and Rs.30,000/-  for fixing stamp fee on  the plaint.  Thereafter, the OP filed a civil suit No.163  dated 30.07.2008  for the recovery of Rs.8,08,569.50 Ps. The said suit was dismissed on 13.08.2013  on the ground  that the suit for recovery does not lie in Civil Court as there is a specific  arbitration clause  in the agreement. The complainant came to know that the OP has affixed a stamp duty  of Rs.10,202/-  only whereas he has taken a sum of Rs.30,000/- .  The complainant discussed the matter with other counsels and after discussing with the other counsels the complainant astonished to know that the OP is habitual of such practices and his reputation is very low due to such activities  in the Bar.  The complainant  approached the OP  and demanded his balance  amount of Rs.19,798/-  and Rs.50,000/-   and also Rs.10,202/-   but he refused to accede the requests of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OP be directed to refund the balance amount of Rs.19,798/-which was paid  by the complainant for fixing stamp duty,

ii)     OP be directed to refund Rs.50,000/-  which was paid by the complainant as counsel fee and to refund Rs. 10202/- which was affixed as court fee,

iii)    OP be directed to issue a direction to the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh and Bar Council of India, Delhi to cancel the enrolment of the OP,

iv)    OP be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation of humiliation and harassment,

v)     OP be directed to pay Rs.15000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, jurisdiction and cause of action have been taken up. On merits, it is submitted that the said agreement  and its clause No.9  was well within  the knowledge of the complainant and he was fully aware of its consequences. However, it is submitted that under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the Civil Court is not to reject a plaint.  Even if there is an arbitration agreement or arbitration clause in an agreement, the court is not bound to refer the matter for arbitration.  The matter in dispute between the complainant and Lotus Infrabuild Ltd.  was not covered under the said agreement.  No Arbitrator was ever appointed by the said company. When no such Arbitrator was ever appointed there would be no question of referring any matter for an arbitrational settlement. The complainant cannot be treated to be a consumer in seeking legal advice from the opposite party. The complainant never talked about any dispute nor the said company i.e. Lotus Infrabuild Ltd. considered  the existence of any such dispute between the complainant and the said company. It is denied that the complainant had approached the opposite party for filing a case before the Arbitrator. When no Arbitrator was ever appointed  there could be no question for filing any case before the Arbitrator.  The complainant had himself instructed the opposite party to file a suit for recovery in a competent Court of Law. The complainant had settled Rs.5,000/- only as legal fee to be paid to the opposite party for filing the said suit out of which he had paid only Rs.4500/- till date. It is further submitted that the complainant came  to the opposite party on 28.07.2008 in the evening and handed over an amount of Rs.10,202/-  to the clerk of the opposite party. The court fee was purchased on 29.07.2008  and suit was filed on 30.07.2008.  The suit of the complainant was never dismissed as has been stated in the complaint.  The matter before  the Civil Court was not at all lingered on by the opposite party.  The opposite party has been practicing as an Advocate in Barnala Courts since 1980 and enjoys a very good reputation.  The complainant came  to the opposite party on 19.09.2013 and application  for obtaining  the copy of the order  dated 13.08.2013  was filed on the same very day and the copy was also obtained on that very day which was handed over to the complainant. Other documents i.e the complaint and stamp papers were also handed over  to the complainant by the court official. It is stated that  the complainant was duly informed about the order dated 13.08.2013 on 13.08.2013 itself,  but he came to the opposite party only on 19.09.2013. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.           

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-7 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP has tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-15 and closed evidence.

4.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the documents placed on file, we find that the main point of controversy in the present complaint is with regard to inadequate and improper services rendered by the advocate of the complainant.

5.             The version of the complainant is that he undertook a contract with Lotus Infrabuild Limited, Raikot Road, Barnala and as per the contract, he was entitled for a sum of Rs. 7,35,069.50 from the Lotus Infrabuild Limited but the Lotus Infrabuild Limited had  denied to pay the said amount to the complainant, so the complainant visited  the opposite party for filing his case before the Arbitrator but the opposite party  filed the recovery suit and unnecessarily delayed the proceedings, for which the complainant had to undergo mental tension, agony and harassment by this act of the opposite party.

6.             On the other hand, the version of the opposite party is that  he had acted strictly as per the instructions of the complainant and for that he had  sent a legal notice  Ex.OP-3 as per the instructions of the complainant and this fact has  very well been mentioned in the legal notice Ex.OP-3. Further, the opposite party has placed on record  document Ex.OP-5 which is a certificate of enrolment  as  Advocate dated 3.3.1980 and has submitted in the affidavit Ex.OP-1 that he has been discharging his duties  since a very long period and has never misguided the clients as alleged by the complainant.  From the perusal of the documents, we find that in the recovery suit the chances of compromise were also explored which is evident from the documents Ex.OP-8 and Ex.OP-9 and al this leads us to believe  that still then the complainant was in harmony with the opposite party and had no point of controversy but since the compromise was not effected  and case  was referred to the Arbitrator,  so on account of this the controversy of the complainant with the opposite party arose. The opposite party has  also tendered document Ex.OP-13 on the back of which  the complainant has signed  under the receipt of original stamp paper etc. which is dated 19.09.2013 but the present complaint has been filed much after receipt of papers from the civil court i.e. after approximately eight months. Moreover, there is no evidence with regard to the payment of fee and excess payment for stamp as alleged by the complainant. However, when  the complainant himself  has received the original stamps papers on 19.09.2013 as per document Ex.OP-13 he cannot take  such a version at the belated stage. The OP has tendered  an affidavit  of his clerk  Ex.OP-2 which corroborates the version of the OP with regard to the amount received on account of stamp papers by the opposite party.  

7.             In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint filed by the complainant and the same is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                       

Announced       

May 4, 2015

( Vandna Sidhu)         ( Karnail Singh) (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                            Member                             Member                President