Haryana

Sonipat

295/2014

1. SHIV KUMAR S/O FATEH SINGH,2. RAM PHAL S/O KANHIYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURAT SINGH RATHI S/O DEVI SINGH RATHI - Opp.Party(s)

RAJAN DAHIYA

04 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

             

 

                             Complaint No.295 of 2014

                             Instituted on:10.11.2014                                       Date of order:04.07.2016

 

1.Shiv Kumar son of Fateh Singh,

2.Ram  Phal son of Kanhiya, both the residents of village and post office Malikpur, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.

Versus

 

Surat Singh Rathi son of Devi Singh Rathi, resident of village and post office Rajlu Garhi, tehsil Ganaur, distt. Sonepat.                                                                                     …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF        

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Sh. Sube Singh Adv. for complainant.

         Respondent in person.

 

BEFORE    NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          J.L.GUPTA, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that they engaged the respondent as their counsel and was paid handsome amount for the service of the respondent in a civil suit titled as Shiv Kumar and others Vs. Ram Kali, civil suit no.226/2013 and another civil suit titled as Ram Phal and others Vs. Smt. Shamo, civil suit no.694/2011.  In an enquiry conducted by the Bar Council of Delhi, the certificate of LLB of the respondent was found to be false and fabricated and the same was suspended vide order dated 26.8.2012 and thereafter it was cancelled under the proviso of Advocate Act, 1961.  The respondent was engaged by the complainant no.1 prior to cancelling of licence of the respondent and in this way, the respondent has cheated the complainant and has committed criminal offence.  FIR no.241 dated 20.6.2013 u/s 420/468 etc. was lodged with PS Hauz Khas, South, Delhi against the respondent.   The respondent is liable to pay compensation to the complainants for the losses suffered by them, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, they have come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that he did not charge any fees from the complainant. The services rendered by the Advocate/respondent does not fall under the definition of Consumer Protection Act. The complainants are well educated persons and they signed the plaint after carefully reading the same.  The respondent was not engaged as an Advocate in case Shiv Kumar Vs. Ram Kali.  Dharam Pal Rathee etc. got cancelled the license of the respondent in collusion of official of Patna College and DBC Delhi in July, 2012.  The respondent did not conduct any case of any person after 7/2012. The plaint is not drafted and signed by the respondent, but it was duly signed by Vivek Gaur Advodate.  This civil suit was drafted and signed by JK Rohila, Advocate.  Thus the respondent has not committed any civil and criminal offence.  The complainants are guilty of misrepresentation of the fact.  The complainants have not been cheated by the respondent.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The complainants are not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainants & respondent in person at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that they engaged the respondent as their counsel and was paid handsome amount for the service of the respondent in a civil suit titled as Shiv Kumar and others Vs. Ram Kali, civil suit no.226/2013 and another civil suit titled as Ram Phal and others Vs. Smt. Shamo, civil suit no.694/2011.  In an enquiry conducted by the Bar Council of Delhi, the certificate of LLB of the respondent was found to be false and fabricated and the same was suspended vide order dated 26.8.2012 and thereafter it was cancelled under the proviso of Advocate Act, 1961.  The respondent was engaged by the complainant no.1 prior to cancelling of licence of the respondent and in this way, the respondent has cheated the complainant and has committed criminal offence.  FIR no.241 dated 20.6.2013 u/s 420/468 etc. was lodged with PS Hauz Khas, South, Delhi against the respondent.   The respondent is liable to pay compensation to the complainants for the losses suffered by them, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

          The respondent in person has submitted that he did not charge any fees from the complainant. The services rendered by the Advocate/respondent does not fall under the definition of Consumer Protection Act. The complainants are well educated persons and they signed the plaint after carefully reading the same.  The respondent was not engaged as an Advocate in case Shiv Kumar Vs. Ram Kali.  Dharam Pal Rathee etc. got cancelled the license of the respondent in collusion of official of Patna College and DBC Delhi in July, 2012.  The respondent did not conduct any case of any person after 7/2012. The plaint is not drafted and signed by the respondent, but it was duly signed by Vivek Gaur Advodate.  This civil suit was drafted and signed by JK Rohila, Advocate.  Thus the respondent has not committed any civil and criminal offence.  The complainants are guilty of misrepresentation of the fact.  The complainants have not been cheated by the respondent.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The complainants are not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          But we find no force in the contentions raised by the respondent.  The plea of the respondent that he has no received any amount from the complainants, cannot be believed in any manner because the respondent prior to the disputed incident, has conducted the proceedings of the case of the complainants for many dates.  The case, in which, the respondent was engaged as an Advocate, is still pending and due to the disputed incident, the complainants have to engage some other counsel by paying another fees to the said counsel.  It is also not disputed that the FIR was lodged against the respondent and his degree was also found forged.  So, in our view, the respondent has rendered deficient services to the complainant which not only has caused unnecessary mental agony, harassment, but has also caused a huge financial loss.  The respondent’s act and conduct has played with the sentiments of poor complainants which was never expected by the complainants from an Advocate being involved in a honest & golden profession as it was well within the knowledge of the respondent that he is having forged and fabricated degree, but despite that he ensured to provide his services to the complainants.  Thus, it is held that definitely the respondent is liable to compensate the complainant. 

          The perusal of the case file shows that the complainants have claimed a huge compensation of Rs.18 lacs from the respondent, which in our view is on a very higher side, excessive and exaggerated one.  However, we hereby direct the respondent to pay lumpsum Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lac ) to the complainants for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony and harassment.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

Certified copy of this order be provided to both

the parties free of costs.

          File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

 

(Prabha Wati)(J.L.Gupta)          (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF  Member DCDRF       DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 04.07.2016