MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.         This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals, arising out of the order dated 16.12.2009, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) in complaint case No. 1017 of 2009, vide which it allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation alongwith Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation, within 30 days, failing which,  to pay the entire amount alongwith penal interest @ 12% p.a. since the filing of the complaint i.e. 21.7.2009 till its payment, to the complainant.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant engaged Sh.Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate (OP) for filing an appeal against the order dated 23.5.2007 of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India against Sh.Ravinder Kumar Gargi, Advocate, Civil Courts, Barnala, District Sangrur in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and paid Rs.15,000/- as Counsel fee against receipt to the OP on 23.5.2007 at Sangrur. The OP also took Rs.2,000/- as miscellaneous charges to file the appeal but the receipt thereof was not issued by the OP. It was further stated that the OP got the signatures of complainant on some blank papers for filing the appeal and after that, he told him that the appeal had been filed in the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. It was further stated that the complainant repeatedly visited Chandigarh and asked the OP regarding the development of appeal but everytime, he assured the complainant that the decision would arrive soon. It was further stated that the complainant in the last month, came to know that the OP did not file any appeal against Ravinder Kumar Gargi, Advocate.  It was further stated that the above said acts of the OP amounted to deficiency, in service. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by the OP, wherein, he admitted that he was engaged by the complainant, for filing an appeal and he received Rs.15,000/- as Counsel fee.  It was stated that three briefs were handed over to the OP and he after examining all the papers/briefs, came to the conclusion that the cases pertaining to Sh.Pritpal Singh, Advocate and Sh.Rakesh Kumar Vs. Ravinder Kumar Gargi, Advocate, could not be filed. It was further stated that on 2.6.2007, when the OP visited the chamber of Sh.Anurag Chopra at District Court, Sangrur, the complainant was called and in the presence of Sh.Anurag Chopra, he returned the papers of abovesaid two cases. It was further stated that as per the settlement with the complainant, the fee of Rs.15,000/- was charged for filing the case in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on his behalf, against the order dated 21.11.2006 in Crl.Misc.No.73056/2007, which fact had been concealed by the complainant.  It was further stated that the OP agreed and charged for filing S.L.P in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and there was no other settlement with the complainant. It was further stated that the S.L.P. was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, by the OP, through his Counsel Sh.Narinder Yadav, Adv. and Sh.Mushtaq Ahmed, Adv. and after hearing the matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dismissed the S.L.P. It was further stated that since the SLP of the complainant was dismissed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, for which, the OP was engaged, the complainant filed a false complaint against the OP, in order to extract money from him.   All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OP.

4.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.         The learned District Forum allowed the complaint, against the OP, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order.  

6.            Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/OP filed appeal No.24 of 2010 for setting aside the impugned order, whereas, the complainant/appellant, filed appeal No.86 of 2010, for enhancement of compensation.

7.         We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.

8.         It was contended by the Counsel for the appellant that the fee of Rs.15,000/- was paid by the respondent to the appellant on 23.5.2007 and the complaint was filed by the respondent on 21.7.2009 and, as such, the complaint was barred by time by about two months. He further submitted that the respondent did not file any application for condonation of delay and the learned District Forum illegally adjudicated upon the time barred complaint, without condoning the delay. It was further contended that the learned District Forum further erred in holding that the appellant had no role in filing of the SLP in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the same was filed by the respondent through Sh.Narender Yadav and Sh.Mushtaq Ahmed, Advocates. He further submitted that the learned District Forum further erred in disbelieving the affidavit filed by Sh.Narender Yadav, Advocate, corroborating the version of the appellant. It was further contended that the learned District Forum wrongly disbelieved that Sh.Anurag Chopra, Advocate had suffered a paralytic attack, when the appellant filed the reply. It was further contended that the learned District Forum also failed to appreciate the writing on the brief of the appellant, in which, it was made clear that the documents pertaining to two cases, against the advocates were returned to the respondent on 2.6.2007 and the fee received in case of Rakesh Kumar Vs.R.K.Gargi was adjusted against fee in case Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and others, to be filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 

9.         The appellant/complainant, in cross appeal No.86 of 2010 contended that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is well reasoned. It was further contended that the learned District Forum granted the compensation of Rs.50,000/- as demanded by him, in the complaint. However, the amount of Rs.15,000/- as Counsel fee and Rs.2,000/- as expenses, which were paid by the respondent/complainant were not ordered to be refunded to him wrongly. He further contended that the order be modified and the refund of Rs.17,,000/- aforesaid be also ordered in his favour.

10.       The cause of action arose, in favour of the complainant on 23.5.2007 and the complaint was filed on 21.7.2009 with a delay of 2 months, without filing any application for condonation of delay. The learned District Forum by ignoring the fact that the complaint filed by the complainant was barred by time. Section 24 –A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, reads, as under ;

“[24-A. Limitation period: - (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfied the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

            Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.]”

The language of Section 24-A of the Act, extracted above, mandates that no complaint shall be admitted by the Consumer Foras, unless it is filed within 2 years from the date on which, the cause of action has arisen. The District Forum acted illegally in admitting the complaint and adjudicated the same on merits, when it was barred by time. The complaint being barred by time is not maintainable. Therefore, the order passed by the learned District Forum is liable to be set aside.

11.       In view of the above discussion, the appeal bearing No. 34 of 2010 filed by the appellant/OP is allowed and the order passed by the learned District Forum is set aside.

12.       The Appeal bearing No.86 of 2010 filed by the complainant/appellant, is dismissed, in view of the order passed in appeal No.34 of 2010.

13.       The parties are left to bear their own costs. 

14.     A copy of the order be placed in appeal No. 34 of 2010.

15.          Certified copies be sent to the parties, free of cost.

 Pronounced.                                                                        

2^nd September, 2011.