Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.3.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint. 2. The facts, in brief, are that a Regular Second Appeal bearing RSA No.666 of 1989 was filed against the complainants in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. In order to defend the said appeal, they engaged the OP (now respondent) as a Counsel and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as fee. According to the complainants, the first date for hearing of the appeal was 08.01.2009. Thereafter, the appeal was put up before different Hon’ble Judges for hearing. However, the arguments were not heard. Ultimately, the arguments were heard, in the appeal, and the same was decided on 21.01.2009. The case of the complainants was that the OP did not appear before the Hon'ble Bench at the time of hearing the appeal, and came to the Court at 3.30 p.m., as a result whereof, the appeal was decided against them(complainants). It was further stated that, as such, the OP was deficient, in rendering service. When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by them . 3. The OP, put in appearance, and filed reply, wherein, he admitted that he was engaged as a Counsel to defend the appeal. It was, however, stated by him that he had appeared in the appeal before the concerned Bench and had argued the matter. It was further stated that, ultimately, the appeal was decided against the complainants. It was further stated that a Special Leave Petition filed by the complainants, before the Hon’ble Apex Court, was also dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2010. It was further stated that the OP was not deficient, in rendering service. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong. 4. After hearing Complainant No.2, the Counsel for respondent, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OP and, as such, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed, by the appellants/complainants. 6. We have heard Sh.Hari Prem Sharma, Appellant NO.2, on his own behalf, and on behalf of Appellant NO.1, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 7. Appellant No.2 submitted that, in fact the OP appeared before the Bench at about 3.30 P.M and did not argue the matter, in a proper manner, as a result whereof, the Regular Second Appeal was decided against the complainants. He further submitted that since the fee had been paid to the OP, after engaging him as a Counsel, in the aforesaid appeal, it was his legal duty to appear before the concerned Bench, when the same (appeal) was called for arguments. He further submitted that it was his bounden duty to address arguments, in a proper manner, but he failed to do so. He further submitted that, as such, the OP was deficient, in rendering service. He further submitted that the original appeal was fixed before one Bench and later on the roster was changed. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 8. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by appellant NO.2, and, on going through the record, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. There is, no dispute, about the factum, that the aforesaid RSA was filed against the complainants, in the High Court. Undisputedly, the OP was engaged as a Counsel, for which the complainants, had paid him Rs.15,000/- as fee. The question arises, as to whether, the OP, appeared before the Bench, when the appeal was called for hearing of arguments and whether he addressed arguments or not. Annexure C-1 is a copy of the judgment dated 21.1.2009 delivered by the High Court in the aforesaid appeal. A careful perusal of the judgment reveals that Sh.Chetan Mittal, Advocate (OP), appeared on behalf of the respondents (appellants in the instant appeal) and argued the appeal. The arguments which were addressed by the OP, were duly dealt with by the Hon’ble Judge, as is evident from the judgment. Under these circumstances, the allegations of the appellants, to the effect, that the OP appeared only at 3.30 P.M. and did not advance arguments, in a proper manner, are nothing, but false. It is the duty of the Counsel to argue the case. The result of the case, is not in the hands of the Counsel. It is for the Judge to decide the case, after hearing the Counsel for the parties, and on going through the evidence. The mere fact that the case was decided against the appellants/complainants, though the Counsel had argued the same, in a proper manner, does not mean that the said Counsel was deficient, in rendering service. Under these circumstances, there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OP. The submission of appellant No.2 in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same is rejected. 9. The change of roster was the prerogative of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court. The Counsel has no role to play in the change of roster. From 1989 to 2009, when the appeal remained pending, the same was listed before various Hon’ble Judges, on account of change of roster. Whether the appeal was decided by one Bench or the other, before which it was listed for arguments, hardly mattered. Since, the OP had no role to play in the change of the roster, he could not be said to be deficient, in service. 10. The order rendered by the District Forum 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 no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld. 12. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 13. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | |
