DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.201/2011
Sh. Manohar Singh SENIOR CITIZEN
R/o B-33, Bhagwati Garden, (73 YEARS OLD)
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 ….Complainant
Versus
Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society
Through its Secretary
109, Lawyers Chambers, Post Office Wing,
Supreme Court Compound,
New Delhi-110001 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 03.06.11 Date of Order : 05.05.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Sh. S. S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
S. S. Fonia, Member
In short, the case of the Complainant is that he approached the Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society (hereinafter called as OP) for filing SLP in the Supreme Court after submitting the prescribed form on 19.09.09 alongwith Bank Draft of Rs.8500/- towards preparation costs and advocate fee etc with specific attention of OP being drawn to two months’ period for filing SLP. Thereafter, the OP assigned the matter to one of its empanelled members Shri A.D.N.Rao, Adv. Despite repeated requests to expedite the matter the Complainant failed to get any satisfactory reply from the Advocate and as a result the limitation of SLP got expired on 30.11.2009. In view of the abnormal delay, he requested the OP either to assign the job to another advocate or to return the brief. He also requested for refund of the amount paid. Finally, the OP without any services returned the case file to the Complainant on 01.04.2010 but did not refund the amount of Rs.8,500/- to the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant himself filed the SLP in the Supreme Court which was dismissed “on the ground of delay”. After lot of persuasion, the OP refunded Rs.8000/- to him after deducting Rs.500/- as service charges despite the fact that no service has been provided to the Complainant. Aggrieved by the conduct of the OP and pleading serious negligence and deficiency in service, the Complainant has moved this Forum with the following prayers:-
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant for deficiency in service.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant (a senior citizen & heart patient) for causing mental agony.
- Direct the OP to pay cost of Rs.5001 to the Complainant.
OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the OP is a not a service provider and the Complainant has not made any case of deficiency by the OP with further averments that the Complainant is not a Consumer as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The OP has further asserted that they are the society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with the sole purpose to provide legal aid to persons belonging to a segment of middle class who seek enforcement of their rights before the Supreme Court and the society is funded by monies received as cost awarded by the Supreme Court as costs and from nominal fees received from the applicants desirous of seeking legal aid under the society. OP has further averred that the society is envisaged as a charitable, non-profit making society whose essential object is to provide legal assistance to the needy. OP stated as under:
“(ii) Vide his letter dated 9.10.09 the complainant gave his choice of preference of the advocates whom he desired to represent him in his matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. From the list of the panel advocates suggested by the complainant, the opposite party assigned the matter to the panel advocate of the complainant’s choice. A true copy of the letter dt. 9.10.09 is annexed herein as ANNEXURE-B. The complainant deposited all the relevant documents including a DD No. 476635 dated 19.9.2009 for Rs. 8500/- toward the Advocate’s fee, Society’s registration charges and other misc. charges.
- That as per the consent of the complainant the matter was assigned on 23.10.2009 to the Panel Advocate for filing of the SLP and defending the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
- That as per the rules and regulations of the Society, once a case is assigned to an advocate it is the responsibility of the advocate to deal with the matter and the advocate and the litigant are required to communicate directly to each other. The Society thereafter does not monitor the progress of the case.”
OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. Ranjit Kumar, Secretary of OP has been filed in evidence.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully and dispassionately.
Primarily, the question which arises for consideration is, whether the OP which is a legal aid society to the middle income group people is working for any consideration or otherwise. We have gone through the Ex.OPW/1 which is Memorandum of Association of the Society of OP which inter-alia aims at providing legal aid to the persons with monthly income of Rs.20,000/Rs.25,000 or Rs.2,40,000/3,00,000 per annum for appropriate cases who are unable to afford legal assistance. Given the substantial cost of litigation in general and before the Supreme Court in particular, the society is envisaged as charitable, non profit making Society with further stipulation in AOA that the society would be at liberty to assign the matter to any Advocate on record and also a sum of Rs.500/- shall be payable to the OP society as service charges.
Admittedly, when the Advocate assigned by OP Society could not file the SLP before the Supreme Court within the prescribed time, the Complainant was refunded Rs.8000/- after deducting service charges of Rs.500/- by the OP.
In order to come within the meaning of ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, there has to be consideration for availing the services being provided to the consumer. In the instant case, the OP Society is purely a non-profit making agency and the sum of Rs.500/- charged by them towards service charges are definitely not for making profit by them but meant for defraying the incidental expenses. Therefore, there is no element of consideration of any money being charged from the people seeking justice from the Supreme Court for the exclusive profit of OP. It is matter of simple appreciation that non-profit making society would not have taken Rs.500/- for profit but to meet incidental expenditure which is quite nominal and also barest minimum requirement to run the society for the benefit of public coming from the middle income group. Notwithstanding also, we are also of the view that if such societies are dragged into consumer dispute, we are afraid the very purpose of giving legal aid shall be defeated. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order to as costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(S. S. Fonia) (Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member Member President
Announced on 05.05.16.
Case No. 201/11
5.5.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S. S. Fonia) (Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member Member President
