Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.1.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only),vide which it dismissed the complaint of the Complainant(now appellant). 2. According to the complainant, a criminal case under Sections 307 IPC and 3,4,5 TDPA Act was registered against his son Major Singh on 12.3.1989 in Police Station, Hajipur. He engaged the OP/respondent, as an advocate, for defending his case and paid Rs.30,000/- as fee, by borrowing the same from the commission agent Basant Singh. The complainant stated that even after taking the said huge amount, the OP did not do anything in the case. It was further stated that the OP, was, thus, deficient, in rendering service to the complainant. A complaint against the OP was filed before the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana High Court, but the same was dismissed on 4.8.2009. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no other alternative, he filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only). 3. After hearing the complainant in person, the District Forum came to the conclusion, that it was not a fit complaint to be admitted, and thus, the same was dismissed, at the preliminary stage. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant/complainant . 5. We have heard the complainant/appelalnt in person, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 6. The complainant/appellant , submitted that, he had engaged the OP as a Counsel to defend the aforesaid case and paid Rs.30,000/- as fee, but he did not do anything, nor refunded the fee. He further submitted that the OP did not provide the services, for which, he was paid consideration, and, on the other hand, harassed the complainant when he demanded the amount. He further submitted that the OP was deficient, in rendering service. He further submitted that, since he is an illiterate and rustic villager, he did not know the intricacies of law and was unaware about the period within which a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 was required to be filed, and, as such, delay occurred in filing the same. He further submitted that the District Forum, was wrong, in holding that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OP, and the complaint was also barred by time. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 7. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the appellant, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. The first question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the OP/respondent who was engaged by the appellant to defend the case of his son Major Singh, did not pursue the same diligently. In order to establish this factum, the complainant produced certified copy of C.O.C.P.No.1490/2004. According to the complainant, this C.O.C.P. was not properly pursued by the OP,and, as such the same was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 25.4.2005, copy whereof is C-1. Thereafter C.M. No.8821-CH of 2005 in C.O.C.P. No.1490 of 2004 was filed for restoration of the main petition. The C.O.C.P., as is evident from the order C-2, was restored to its original number on 6.12.2005. It is further evident from C-2, certified copy of the order, referred to above, that the Counsel for the appellant, who was the petitioner in the COCP, made a statement, that he did not wish to press the petition, in view of the reply filed by Sh.Promod Ban, IPS, Sr.Supdt. of Police,Gurdaspur. The perusal of the reply, C-3 by the S.S.P. Gurdaspur, clearly revealed that village Wadala Granthian, where the complainant was residing, fell within the jurisdiction of Police District Batala. It was made clear in reply C-3, that on receipt of a copy of the petition, from the High Court, the same was sent to the S.S.P, Police District, Batala, who entrusted the inquiry to the Supdt. Of Police, Detective, Batala. The Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of the complainant, who was the petitioner, in the petition, before the High Court, wherefrom, it was revealed that his son was kidnapped, from village Fathu Kulla, P.S.Tanda, and thereafter the enquiry was sent to the S.S.P., Hoshiarpur. The S.S.P., Hoshiarpur, entrusted the enquiry to the D.S.P., Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. As per the enquiry report of the D.S.P. Dasuya, the son of the complainant namely Major Singh had not been kidnapped from Village Fathu Kulla on 11.12.89, as no record with regard to the same, was found in P.S.Tanda, it was made clear, in the report, that the son of the complainant was not wanted in any case of P.S.Tanda. It was in view of the reply of the SSP Gurdaspur, that a statement was made by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, in the High Court, that he did not want to proceed with the C.O.C.P. against him (S.S.P,Gurdaspur) and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order C-2 dated 6.12.2005. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the OP did not pursue the petition, in right earnest, but was negligent in any manner. The OP performed his duty, in a sincere and faithful manner. The OP, was , thus, not deficient, in rendering service. The District Forum, was, thus, right in holding so. 8. Not only this, the District Forum, was also right, in holding that whatever instructions were given by the complainant to the OP, on the basis thereof, he filed the petition, in the High Court, against the S.S.P.Gurdaspur. It was not that the OP, of his own, impleaded the S.S.P, Gurdaspur, as a party to the petition, as he had no reason to do so. Since, the S.S.P. Gurdaspur was impleaded as a respondent, to the petition, as per instructions of the complainant, it could not be said that the OP was, in any way, negligent or deficient, in rendering service. 9. The District Forum, was also right, in coming to the conclusion, that the complaint was palpably barred by time. Annexure C-2 order was passed on 6.12.2005. In case, there was any alleged deficiency, in service, on the part of the OP, or he was negligent in rendering service, in the case, before the High Court, in any manner, then the cause of action accrued to the complainant, to file the complaint, within a period of two years from that date, as envisaged under Section24A of the Act. He, however, slept over the matter, for such a long time and, ultimately, filed the complaint on 22.12.2009. No doubt, the complainant took shelter, under the plea that he, being a rustic villager, did not know the intricacies of law, and being ignorant regarding the period, within which, the complaint could be filed under Section 12 of the Act, delay occurred. Since the complainant, had engaged a Counsel, in the High Court, who had filed the Criminal Writ Petition and thereafter, C.O.C.P. against the S.S.P.Gurdaspur, it could not be said that he was not aware of the intricacies of law and the procedure. A person who can engage a Counsel in the High Court, could certainly consult another Counsel, as to what was the period of limitation, for filing a complaint, under Section 12 of the Act, against the OP, as he allegedly was deficient, in rendering service. Under these circumstances, the District Forum, was also right, in dismissing the complaint on this ground. 10. The order of the District Forum, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.3000/-. 12. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 13. The file be consigned to the record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
