MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.         This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant against order, dated 25.8.2009, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) in complaint case No. 143 of 2009 vide which, it dismissed the complaint.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case are, that the complainant executed the power of attorney, in favour of the OP, and paid legal fees, amounting to Rs.10,000/- to him, as full and final payment, for contesting his case in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.  It was stated that the complainant visited to the OP for filing his case and he assured him that his case had been filed and the next date would be told him on the telephone or on the next visit. It was further stated that the complainant visited the OP, Advocate, many times, as well as contacted him, on his phone, to know about the outcome of his case as well as the proceedings conducted therein, but he put him off on one pretext or the other. It was further stated that for filing a Criminal Misc. Petition, in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, the complainant spent huge amount and visited the OP from October, 2006 to November, 2008. It was further stated that the complainant was shocked, when he came to know that the OP did not file the Criminal Misc. Petition, in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, and false assurance was given to him by the OP that his case had been filed in the said Court. It was further stated that this act of the OP, Advocate, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulging into unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed. 

3.         Reply was filed by the OP wherein he admitted that the complainant visited him for filing a quashing petition before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court but he did not pay him any fee. It was stated that the he (complainant) promised to pay the fee as well as typing charges to the OP, after two weeks. Therefore, the petition was dictated & prepared.  It was further stated, that on the next visit of the complainant, and his wife,  they were told that their petition was ready and they may go through the same and get the affidavit, which was attested on 3.11.2006.  It was further stated that the OP was busy in Court work when the complainant whisked away with the original petition duly signed by the OP. Thereafter, the complainant did not turn up for filing the petition or payment of fee. It was further stated that the complainant had not paid fee of Rs.33,000/- alongwith expenses of Rs.1,000/- as settled between them. It was further stated that the particulars of the complainant were in the brief, which he took away, so the OP was unable to contact him. All other allegations levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of OP.  

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

5.       The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint, as stated above.  

6.            Aggrieved against the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the complainant/appellant filed the instant appeal. 

7.         We have heard Sh.Sawinder Singh, appellant in person, Sh.S.L.Chander Shekhar, Advocate (respondent) in person, and, have perused the record, carefully.

8.       The appellant/complainant argued that he hired the services of the respondent/OP, for contesting his case, in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court for quashing of the FIR and had paid a fee of Rs.10,000/- to him.  It was submitted that the OP had not given any receipt regarding the payment of fee to him.  It was further submitted that he was shocked to find that the Counsel after repeated reminders, did not file the case/petition in the Court, in spite of payment of fee to him.  It was further stated that the complainant had also filed a complaint before the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, which is still pending.

9.         The OP, who is an Advocate, by profession, submitted that the complainant visited him and asked him to file a case, in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court but he did not pay any fee to him and had promised to pay the same as well as the typing charges after two weeks.  It was further submitted that the OP prepared the case and handed it over to the complainant for going through the same, but in the meantime, when he (OP) was busy in attending the cases, the complainant slipped away alongwith the brief of the case and did not turn up for filing the case.  It was further submitted that the OP was neither deficient, in service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

10.       The instant appeal was filed after the delay of 180 days. In the application for condonation of delay, the grounds set up by the appellant/applicant were that he lacked knowledge rendering the period of limitation and that his wife also remained ill. Ignorance of law is no excuse. The appellant had been appearing in the complaint, as also visiting the OP in the High Court. He could contact a Counsel, who could advise him, as to what was the period of limitation for filing an appeal in such a case. He did not do so. Even no medical certificate was produced by the appellant, that his wife was ailing. The appellant could not furnish a satisfactory explanation, regarding 180 days delay, which is six times, more than the normal period of limitation. There was complete inaction and lack of bona-fides, on the part of the appellant/applicant, in filing the appeal, in time. There is, thus, no sufficient cause for condonation of delay, in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay, thus, deserves to be dismissed.

11.            Coming to the appeal, it may be stated here, that the same also deserves dismissal, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. The appellant could not produce any receipt regarding the payment of fee to the OP. Had he paid the fees to the OP for filing a quashing petition, he could have certainly obtained the receipt from the OP. It was not that there is only one Advocate in the High Court. In case, the OP was allegedly reluctant in issuing the receipt, then the appellant could engage another Counsel. No doubt in CA, reply filed by the OP before the Bar Council, he had taken a stand, which is different from the one taken by him, in the present case. However, that fact alone is not sufficient hold that he took the fees from the complaint, but did not file the quashing petition. The appellant, thus, failed to prove through reliable evidence that the OP failed in his duty, in filing the quashing petition, despite getting the fees from him. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the complainant nor he indulged into unfair trade practice. 

12.       With the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the complainant is dismissed being barred by limitation as well as on merits, being devoid of merit, with no order as to costs and the order passed by the learned District Forum is upheld. 

13.            Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.                                                                        

3^rd May, 2011.