Kirpal Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite party No. 1 to make payment of Rs. 20,000/- alongwith interest and compensation amounting to Rs.25,000/-. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he is member of the Balbir Basti Land Owning Cooperative Society Limited, Faridkot. Society owned land at Talwandi Road, Faridkot. The land was acquired by the department of Mal Mandi. Income Tax was deducted. Society engaged counsel opposite party No. 1 for refund of the tax. To consult Advocate five members committee was formed. Complainant himself, Harbans Singh resident of street No. 2, Balbir Basti, Faridkot, Badru Ram Member resident of Street No. 5, Balbir Basti, Faridkot, Kartar Singh Member resident of Jeewan Nagar, Faridkot, all of the three above noted persons are expired and Jeet Singh Member son of Bhag Singh resident of Balbir Basti, Street No. 8/Right, Faridkot. The above noted Jeet Singh Member etc. were assured that the entire amount shall be got refunded but the opposite party No. 1 shall have to pay Rs. 50,000/- to pay for payment to the higher officers. They came into the confidence of the opposite party No. 1 and paid Rs.20,000/- and remaining amount was to be paid after receipt of the amount. Thereafter the Members and the complainant asked the opposite party No. 1 to execute the receipt. The opposite party No. 1 told them that he had no receipt with him and he executed a receipt of Rs.20,000/- on the letter pad of Supreme Tractor Corporation, Faridkot. He affixed his stamp and seal. The audit party checked the record. They did not agree to consider the receipt for payment of Rs.20,000/-. They prepared arbitration case of Rs.20,000/- and deducted amount of Rs. 20,430/- from the payment. Thereafter complainant went to the opposite party No. 1 to take a receipt but the opposite party No. 1 had been putting the matter off. Complainant has been harassed by the opposite party No. 1. Jeet Singh Member and other members have expired. They have received the amount of their entitlement but complainant could not get the amount as the opposite party No. 1 did not hear the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 asked the complainant to do whatsoever he can do, so the complainant for the last 10/11 years is approaching Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Faridkot and the opposite party No. 1 but he has not been heard by any person. Complainant has been harassed mentally. He has suffered a lot. Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- from the opposite party No. 1. Complainant has requested to give relief of payment of Rs.20,000/- alongwith interest by the opposite party No. 1 to the complainant alongwith compensation of Rs.25,000/-. Hence this complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 1/3/2006 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party No. 1. <br /> 4. On receipt of the notice the opposite party No. 1 appeared through Sh. S.K. Jain Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objection that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, as the opposite party No. 1 was not engaged by the complainant personally but opposite party No. 1 was engaged as an Income Tax Advocate by The Balbir Basti Scheduled Caste Land Owning Cooperative Society, Faridkot, so the present complaint is not maintainable. The respondent was engaged as counsel for The Balbir Basti Scheduled Caste Land Owning Cooperative Society, Faridkot vide their resolution dated 6/12/1989. The society in this resolution authorised Sh. Tarlochan Kumar Member to appear on behalf of the Society alongwith opposite party No. 1. Said Tarlochan Kumar was authorised to sign, verify all the pleadings and give power of attorney etc. for an on behalf of the society. The claim is barred by limitation as the payment in respect of litigation expenses and professional fee were paid way back in the year 1990, so the present complaint is hopelessly barred by the limitation. On merits the opposite party No. 1 submitted that The Balbir Basti Scheduled Caste Land Owning Cooperative Society had sold 24 Kanal 7 Marla land of B.S.F. for Rs. 12,48,125/- vide registered sale deed dated 5/3/1986. When the B.S.F. Authorities sought the clearance of registration of sale deed under the Income Tax Act, then the Income Tax Officer deducted Rs. 2,39,506/- as income tax in March, 1986 from the sale consideration and thereafter the deed was registered under Indian Registration Act. Income tax of Rs. 51,660/- was imposed vide order dated 18/10/1989 under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. Later on it transpired that no part of land was used for agriculture purpose, therefore, the assessing authority levied additional tas for the land which was earlier wrongly assumed as exempted. So society engaged the present respondent in December 1989 for defending their cases. Thereafter the respondent filed an application under Section 154/155 for annulment/cancellation of the assessment order dated 14/10/1987 passed under Section 143 (3) and requested for refund of the entire tax amounting to Rs. 2,39,506/- with interest. The income tax officer rejected this application vide order dated 3/1/1990. The opposite party No. 1 filed two appeals one against the order under Section 154 wherein the above orders were challenged and another appeal was filed against order dated 18/10/1989 requesting for cancellation of tax imposed of Rs. 51,660/-. Both appeals were heard on different dates at Bathinda and respondent had to travel by taxi to Bathinda in connection with these appeals. One of the appeal was accepted and subsequent additional tax which was imposed, was stood cancelled and the income tax paid and interest thereon was allowed to refund. The appeal against the original order of assessment which was rejected by appellate authority, the respondent was preferred further appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, registered as ITA No. 1029 (ASR), 1990. The Tribunal further rejected the appeal vide order dated 8/4/1997. Thereafter the respondent filed reference application under Section 256 under Section 256 of the Income Tax against above orders of the Tribunal which was registered as RA No. 30 (ASR), 1997. The said application was allowed by the Bench vide order dated 28th April, 1998. The matter was referred to the Hon'ble High Court which is registered as IT reference No. 82 of 1998. The entire expenses from the initiation of proceedings under Section 154 till filing of paper books in the Hon'ble High Court were borne by the respondent which includes expenses of conveyance, fee of the opposite party No. 1 for attending the cases before Income Tax Officer and Commissioner (Appeals) and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal plus all incidental charges including typing, postage, printing and professional charges which comes more than Rs. 23,000/- and a bill was also given to the Society. The society owes the respondent about Rs. 3,000/- as balance charges. The opposite party No. 1 never demanded Rs. 50,000/- fro payment to Superior Tax Officers. The respondent was paid only Rs. 20,000/- by the society after the receipt of the refund of Rs. 58,000/-. The society has undertaken to pay the balance fee and expenses as and when the matter is settled in the Hon'ble High Court. The respondent had given the receipt of Rs. 20,000/- to the society. The respondent is not aware of any audit objection on account of receipt being not given. The respondent also had given bill of expenses of about Rs. 23,600/- out of which Rs. 20,000/- were paid to the respondent. The respondent is prepared to issue a fresh receipt if the complainant produces the copy of any audit objection in this Forum and the respondent would given receipt afresh. There is no fault and remissness on the part of the respondent, rather the complainant is at fault. Complainant is not entitled for any compensation as claimed. The respondent has rendered best professional services and got Rs. 58,000/- refunded to the society and fought the matter up to the Hon'ble High Court. The case was time barred and the respondent succeeded in getting revived and taking the matter to the Hon'ble High Court. Instead of giving credit to his best performance he is being implicated in this false complaint. In fact the complainant is the only person who is against the respondent. This Forum has no jurisdiction in the matter as professional law does not fall within the purview of rendition of services and the complaint be dismissed and special costs by awarded against the complainant. The respondent also reserves his right to take civil as well as criminal action against the complainant for raising false allegations against him. The respondent is a Senior Advocate of Ex-Bar. The respondent is President of the District Tax Bar Association and also remained President of Tax Bar Association earlier. The respondent has been in this profession for the last 26 years i.e since 1976. The respondent was also Additional Legal Income Tax Advisor to Late Raja S. Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur former ruler of Faridkot State. He was also appointed as one of the executant of the Will after demise of His Highness S. Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur. The respondent is also appointed as Additional Legal Income Tax Advisor in Maharawal Khewaji Trust, Faridkot successor of Late Raja Faridkot. So the complaint may be dismissed with costs. <br /> 5. During the proceedings the opposite party No. 2 was arrayed as an opposite party and on receipt of notice the opposite party No. 2 filed written reply and almost admitted the claim of the complainant. <br /> 6. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, affidavit of Bhola Singh Ex.C-2, affidavit of Sukhdev Singh Ex.C-3, affidavit of Sohan Lal Ex.C-4, affidavit of Dalip Kaur Ex.C-5, affidavit of Kulwant Singh Ex.C-6, affidavit of Nikka Singh Ex.C-7, affidavit of Sohan Lal son of Shiv Lal Ex.C-8, affidavit of Ajeet Singh Ex.C-9, another affidavit of complainant Ex.C-10, photocopy of receipt of Rs.20,000/- Ex.C-11 and closed his evidence. <br /> 7. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 tendered in his evidence affidavit of Sunit Kanwal Kataria Ex.R-1, copy of resolution Ex.R-2 dated 16/12/1989, copy of order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act dated 18/10/1989 Ex.R-3, copy of sale deed dated 5/3/1986 Ex.R-4, copy of letter issued by Income Tax Officer Ex.R-5, copy of order under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act dated 14/10/1987 Ex.R-6, copy of order in appeal dated 24/7/1990 Ex.R-7, copy of refund voucher Ex.R-8, copy of order under Section 250(6) of Commissioner of Income Tax Ex.R-9, copy of order passed by Income Tax Tribunal Amritsar Ex.R-10, copy of order dated 8/4/1997 Ex.R-11, copy of draft order dated 19/3/1998 Ex.R-12, copy of intimation issued by Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh dated 14/7/1998 Ex.R-13, copy of intimation issued by Assistant Registrar dated 11/8/1998 Ex.R-14, affidavit of Tarlochan Kumar Ex.R-15, receipt issued by the Income Tax Department dated 8/12/1989 Ex.R-16, application carbon copy for obtaining copy of assessment order signed by Tarlochan Kumar Ex. R-18, carbon copy of from No. 35 Ex.R-19, I.T. Challan of Rs.200/- as reference fee Ex.R-20, carbon copy of form No. 36 Ex.R-21, carbon copy of written submissions filed before I.T. Tribunal Amritsar Ex.R-22, carbon copy of application for filing reference to the Hon'ble High Court dated 23/7/1997 Ex.R-23, carbon copy of reference application filed before I.T. A.T. Amritsar Ex.R-24, copy of details of the expenses incurred by the opposite party Ex.R-25, attested copy of FIR Ex.R-26, copy of receipt of Rs. 20,000/- from Society Ex.R-27, another affidavit of Sunit Kanwal Kataria Advocate Ex.R-29, copy of award Ex.R-30 and closed their evidence for opposite party No. 1. <br /> 8. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite party No. 2 tendered in their evidence affidavit of Kishori Lal President, The Balbir Basti Scheduled Caste Land Owner Cooperative Society Ltd., Faridkot Ex.R-28 and closed their evidence on behalf of opposite party No. 2. <br /> 9. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for opposite party No.1 and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 10. Complainant has submitted that he is entitled for receiving amount of Rs.20,000/- from the opposite party No. 1 alongwith compensation of Rs.25,000/- as the opposite party No. 1 had been deficient in providing services by not executing a receipt in favour of the complainant amounting to Rs.20,000/-. <br /> 11. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has submitted that the complainant is neither the consumer nor is entitled to get executed receipt from the opposite party No.1. Complainant have leveled false allegations of the demand of Rs.50,000/- to pay to the income tax authorities for getting the case decided in favour of the society. Opposite party No. 1 had been pursuing the case even on the basis of his own expenses. Opposite party No. 1 had issued the receipt to the society. There is no audit objection with regard to rejection of the receipt issued by the opposite party No. 1 to the society. Complainant is misusing process of law just to harass the opposite party No. 1. Complainant has used unparliamentary language in the complaint. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. <br /> 12. From the perusal of the file it is made out that the opposite party No. 1 was engaged as counsel by the society through Tarlochan Kumar vide resolution Ex.R-2 dated 6/12/1989. Accordingly the opposite party No. 1 had been pursuing the case of the society before the Income Tax Authorities which is evident from copy of order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act dated 18/10/1989 Ex.R-3, copy of letter issued by Income Tax Officer Ex.R-5, copy of order under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act dated 14/10/1987 Ex.R-6, copy of order in appeal dated 24/7/1990 Ex.R-7, copy of refund voucher Ex.R-8, copy of order under Section 250(6) of Commissioner of Income Tax Ex.R-9, copy of order passed by Income Tax Tribunal Amritsar Ex.R-10, copy of order dated 8/4/1997 Ex.R-11, copy of draft order dated 19/3/1998 Ex.R-12, copy of intimation issued by Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh dated 14/7/1998 Ex.R-13, copy of intimation issued by Assistant Registrar dated 11/8/1998 Ex.R-14.<br /> 13. Tarlochan Kumar in his affidavit Ex.R-15 who was duly authorised person on behalf of the society have not supported the case of the complainant in any manner with regard to payment of illegal gratification and other amount to the higher income tax authorities. He has deposed with regard to payment of Rs.20,000/- to opposite party No. 1 as a fee and expenses for pursuing the cases. Society has not spent even a single rupee in the above noted cases. All the expenses of typing, appeals fee, traveling by car to Bathinda and Amritsar in all these cases have been borne by Sh. Sunit Kanwal Kataria Advocate out of the above noted amount of Rs.20,000/- given to him from December 1989 to March 1998. The society got refund of Rs. 55,530/- on 29/10/1990. The society paid Rs.20,000/- to Sh. Sunit Kanwal Kataria Advocate through Kirpal Singh Secretary. <br /> 14. From perusal of the audit report got placed on the file it is made out that Gulzar Singh Inspector Cooperative Societies Faridkot submitted special report dated 31/3/1994 in respect of The Balbir Basti Scheduled Caste Land Owning Cooperative Society Ltd. Faridkot to the Assistant Registrar. In this report the complainant Kirpal Singh has been held to have embezzled amount of the society uptill 30/6/1988 found during inspection of the record of 3/1/1989 to the extent of Rs.1430-40 paise. Complainant further has embezzled amount of Rs.1500/- from the account of Kartar Singh on 14/11/1990. Complainant has further embezzled amount of Rs.18,280/- on 3/8/1990. He embezzled further amount of Rs.5300/- on 8/8/1990. Again he embezzled Rs.5130/- on 14/11/1990. Ultimately Inspector, Cooperative Societies as Arbitrator vide order dated 24/9/1996 found that amount of Rs.20,430-40 paise has been embezzled by the complainant from the accounts of the society. From the perusal of this special report and the Arbitrator Award Ex.R-30 it is made out that there is no mention of presentation of receipt Ex.C-11 or Ex.R-27 before the Cooperative Societies Authorities. So it cannot be said that Cooperative Societies Authorities have not consider the receipt for payment of the amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant from the account of the society. There is no bill book of the society as to who paid amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the opposite party No. 1. So it cannot be said the complainant has paid from his pocket amount of Rs.20,000/- to the opposite party No. 1, rather as per affidavit Ex.R-15 of Tarlochan Kumar this amount was paid from the account of the society by the society. There is no record with regard to disbursement of the land acquisition amount to the Members of the Society. All other members have received their due share from the society. Complainant if has not been paid his share from the society then the opposite party No. 1 cannot be held to be at fault in any manner by not paying amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. Rs.20,000/- has been received by the opposite party No. 1 as a fee and other expenses from the society same is non refundable. So complainant cannot be paid amount of Rs.20,000/- by the opposite party No. 1. For want of producing of the record of society in respect of payment of amount of the land acquisition and payment of Rs.20,000/- to opposite party No. 1 the resolution dated 2/3/2007 placed on the file by the complainant is of no use for the complainant in any manner. This resolution appears to be an after thought idea of the complainant. This resolution is not supported by any document of the society. In such like circumstances the testimony of the complainant through his own affidavit Ex.C-1, affidavit of Bhola Singh Ex.C-2, affidavit of Sukhdev Singh Ex.C-3, affidavit of Sohan Lal Ex.C-4, affidavit of Dalip Kaur Ex.C-5, affidavit of Kulwant Singh Ex.C-6, affidavit of Nikka Singh Ex.C-7, affidavit of Sohan Lal son of Shiv Lal Ex.C-8, affidavit of Ajeet Singh Ex.C-9, another affidavit of complainant himself Ex.C-10 are not helpful to the complainant in any manner. These affidavits are not supported by any documents of the society. There are ledger books, receipt books, cheque books, resolution books and other record of the society which has been withheld by the complainant. So these affidavits in the evidence of the complainant making allegations of demand of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the Income Tax Authorities by the opposite party No. 1 as illegal gratification is of no help to the complainant. <br /> 15. The matter is related to the year 1989-1990 with regard to the payment of the amount in question by the society to the opposite party No. 1. The society has not authorised the complainant to file the complaint. Society has not filed the complaint. Complainant could recover the amount if any from the society if ever he has paid from his own pocket. There is no such record that complainant has paid amount of Rs.20,000/- from his pocket to the opposite party No.1. The complainant also is involved in so many criminal cases which is evident from the FIR Ex.R-26 registered in police station saddar, Faridkot on 8/4/2002 at Serial No. 35 against Bhola Singh and others including Kirpal Singh complainant. <br /> 16. So it is held that complaint is not within the period of limitation of two years within which he could file the complaint against the opposite party No.1. Complainant also has not mentioned as to when cause of action arose to him to file this complaint. Even in para No. 7 of the complaint he has mentioned that he is approaching since about 10/11 years office of Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Faridkot and opposite party No.1. So the complaint is hopelessly time barred. <br /> 17. As per Section 55 of the Cooperative Societies Act which is a Act complete for taking any action against the defaulters. The Consumer Forum is debarred from deciding such like cases. So the Consumer Forum also have no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as the matter in dispute touches business of society. Complaint of the complainant in his personal capacity is not maintainable. The receipt Ex. C-11 is having endorsement made by the complainant unilaterally without permission of any person which is having extra text than of the receipt Ex. R-27 which is true photocopy of the original receipt. <br /> 18. The opposite party No. 1 has admitted execution of receipt Ex. R-27 for payment of Rs.20,000/- as his fees by the society. So it is held as per statement Ex. R-15 of Tarlochan Kumar that the society through Sh. Kirpal Singh Secretary paid Rs. 20,000/- to Sh. Sunit Kanwal Kataria Advocate income tax as fee and expenses for pursuing the cases of the society. The society had not spent even a single rupee in all the above noted cases and all the expenses of typing of appeals, traveling and going from and to Bathinda and Amritsar through car have been spent by Sunit Kanwal Kataria Advocate out of the above noted amount of Rs.20,000/- given to him by the society to pursue the cases of the society from 1989 to March 1998. Thus it is also held that there is no need to give new receipt by Sunit Kanwal Kataria Advocate as there is no mention of payment of the amount by Kirpal Singh from his own pocket. Even he has not made reference in the above noted Arbitration cases decided against him. So the receipt Ex.R-27 as mentioned above for all intents and purposes is held to be valid and binding all of the concerned persons. So this order should be considered as the new receipt executed by the opposite party No. 1 as this order contains of the details for its perusal by the competent authorities if so desire in accordance with law. <br /> 19. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances it is held that complainant is not entitled for a receipt afresh to be executed by the opposite party No. 1 in his favour as the complainant has no locus standi and authority to agitate execution of the receipt by the opposite party No. 1 in his favour as the complainant is not a consumer and opposite party No. 1 is not service provider in any manner to the complainant. In such like circumstances the self styled after thought resolution dated 2/3/2007 passed by the society is not helpful to the complainant. This resolution has been brought on the file by the complainant in consonance with the complainant, when the complaint is not maintainable and it is beyond the period of limitation so this resolution in any manner does not help the complainant. The Arbitration Award passed by Sh. Mansa Ram Palta Arbitrator Inspector Cooperative Societies, Faridkot in the case The Balbir Basti Scheduled Caste Land Owning Cooperative Societies Ltd., Faridkot Versus Kirpal Singh dated 24/9/1996 Ex.R-30 is related to embezzlement of the amount of Rs.20,430.40 paise by the complainant from the funds of the society so in any manner it does not relate to the matter in dispute. <br /> 20. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances it is also held that the complaint in the present form is not maintainable. In these circumstances the complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed with no order as to costs due to peculiar circumstances of the case. However the complainant if so desires or advised can proceed before the Cooperative Societies Authorities or the Civil Court to redress his claim if so permitted by law. <br /> 21. At this stage the complainant angrily and in an agitated tone submitted that if this complaint was to be dismissed then it should not have been admitted for hearing. From the perusal of the evidence and documents on the file it is made out that the cases only was admitted to give proper hearing to the complainant so that better senses may prevail in between the parties during the proceedings of the case and the complainant may have taken benefit of the proceedings whens the case is hotly contested by the opposite parties and the Forum if is unable to give any relief to the complainant then complainant should not have any personal grudge with the decision of the Forum. No fault can be found with the Consumer Forum to admit such a complaint which ultimately has been dismissed. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 27/11/2007<br />