Vinod Kumar Vs Vikash etc.
Present: Shri Bal Krishan Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER: -
Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered. Perusal of file shows that this is a second complaint on the same cause of action and the complaint filed earlier was dismissed in default on 30.4.2015. Thereafter, an application for the restoration of complaint was filed by ld. Counsel for complainant in the month of May, 2015 and he kept on taking adjournments on one pretext or the other and ultimately the application for restoration of the complaint was also dismissed on 10.7.2019 by this Forum. Copies of both the orders placed on record by ld. Counsel for the complainant. Today also ld. Counsel for the complainant was told about the fact that second complaint on the same cause of action is not maintainable, if the same is not within the limitation period of 2 years and secondly if the restoration application is already dismissed. It appears that ld. Counsel for the complainant is misguiding his client for the reasons best known to him. The action of the Advocate is against the spirit of Advocate Act and this type of an Advocate needs to be curbed for the welfare of public at large. Moreover, Shri Bal Krishan Gupta, Advocate has waste precious time of this Forum as well as of the complainant. As per Section-26 of C. P. Act, 1986, which is reproduced as under: -
“Where a complaint instituted before the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be is found to be frivolous or vexatious, it shall, for reasons to be recorded in writing, dismiss the complaint and make an order that the complainant shall pay to the opposite party such cost, not exceeding ten thousand rupees, as may be specified in the order”.
In our view, this is a fit case which should be dismissed with costs, as provided in the C. P. Act and set an example for the people Shri Bal Krishan Gupta, Advocate. Thus, from the perusal of the pleadings of second complaint made by ld. Counsel for the complainant, the intention of the Advocate is clearly proves that he want to misguide the complainant. In these facts & circumstances, we have no other option except to impose some cost upon the people like Shri Bal Krishan Gupta, Advocate for misguilding the complainant for reasons best known to him and for wasting the time of this Forum by filing 2nd complaint before this Forum on the grounds as mentioned above.
In this regard we have placed reliance upon the case titled as Reju Thomas Vs The National Insurance Company, WP (c) No.37468 of 2004 (I), decided on 4.8.2008, whereby Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has held that “If the complaint is dismiss in default then remedy of the complainant is to file an appeal challenging the order dismissing the complaint for default, as provided under Section 15 of the CP Act”.
Moreover, the complainant can file a fresh complaint in place of complaint dismissed in default if the same is not barred by limitation or two years from when the cause of action has arisen has not been lapsed and the same view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Indian Machinery Company Vs M/s Ansal Housing and Construction etc., Civil Appeal No. 557 of 2016, decided on 27.1.2016.
So, in view of the facts & circumstances mentioned above, the complaint is dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand only) which is to be paid by Shri Bal Krishan Gupta, Advocate, Enrolment No.P/730/68, Hansi (Hisar) to complainant, failing which complainant is at liberty to file the execution petition against the above named Advocate. The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the complainant free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: - 19.07.2019.
(Saroj Bala Bohra) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
