CORPORATION LIMITED vs MOHINDERJIT SINGH

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 6.6.2003 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short, hereinafter, referred to as District Forum-II) in Complaint Case No. 182 of 2000.

THE facts in brief are as under : THE appellant/complainant- THE Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Limited engaged Mr. Mohinderjit Singh, Advocate for defending the Corporation in Civil Writ Petition No. 3308 of 1980 for implementation of the award of Labour Court. THE appellant/complainant Corporation has earlier challenged the same award vide Civil Writ Petition No. 1854 of 1980 and has engaged the respondent/O.P. to conduct the case till the final decision. THE appellant/complainant has averred that full fee as per bill submitted was paid and the Counsel was engaged till the final disposal of the case and the relevant records for preparation and defending the case were handed over to him but when the matter came up for regular hearing the respondent-Advocate/O.P. did not appear and the case was decided against the appellant vide order dated 14.10.1996, even then, the respondent /O.P. did not apprise the complainant Corporation regarding this and Corporation came to know about the dismissal of its case only when the notice of motion was received in Civil Writ Petition No.10776 of 1997 filed for implementation of order dated 4.10.1996 passed in the connected Writ Petition No.3308 of 1980 in which case also the respondent-Advocate/OP did not appear even when asked by the Hon''ble High Court. THE appellant/complainant has averred that on 22.10.1997 the complainant when appeared before the Hon''ble High Court came to know about the dismissal of Civil Writ Petition No.1854, in default. THE appellant/complainant has alleged that the Advocate has rendered deficient services as he was engaged for defending the case and was paid the full fee. By his non appearance the Corporation has suffered the losses of Rs.21,000/- for not attending the case and engagement of other Advocate for filing review order etc. Rs.2 lacs which the Corporation would have to pay due to the fault of the respondent/OP, Rs.28,000/- paid for Advocate for defending the contempt petition filed by the OP in the aforesaid Writ Petition and adjustment of Rs. 6,313/- which was wrongly demanded and erroneously paid on 16.2.1994. In addition a direction to make good the losses the appellant/complainant has also prayed for direction to return the official record kept by the respondent/O.P. for the preparation of the case. In the reply filed, the preliminary objection taken by the respondent/O.P. are that the records of Civil Writ Petition No. 1854 of 1980 are not available in the High Court; the complaint is not maintainable and is time barred. It is admitted that respondent was engaged to argue the C.W.P. No. 1854 of 1980 and the same was ordered to be heard together with Counter Petition No. 3308 of 1980, but was dismissed due to non-prosecution. Thereafter, L.P.A. No. 613 of 1997 was filed and dismissed as such the Corporation had engaged another Counsel Mrs. Avtar Kaur, Advocate and then Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Advocate. On merits, it is alleged that no record was handed over to the respondent and the same remains in the custody of complainant Corporation and Mr. Hans Raj Sana, Law Officer of complainant Corporation is responsible for the state of affairs. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and respondent prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

In evidence the affidavit of Sh. Raminderjit Singh, G.M. (Marketing) of P.D.D.R.C.-complainant Corporation has been filed.

THE District Forum held this consumer complaint to be beyond pecuniary jurisdiction as the releif claimed was not less than Rs. 7,55,313/- due to which the complaint was returned to the complainant to be presented before the State Commission having pecuniary jurisdiction. However, on 15.3.2003 the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was amended and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum was enhanced to Rs. 20 lacs in view of which fact the complaint was filed again before the District Forum for consideration and decision. The District Forum again dismissed the complaint though on a different ground of the complainant being a commercial Corporation and it was held that O.P. had hired the services for commercial purpose and does not fall within the definition of consumer as envisaged under Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act as amended. The complainant was relegated to the remedy of Civil Court or any other competent Forum having jurisdiction.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the District Forum the present appeal has been filed on the grounds inter alia that the District Forum seriously fell into error as it held the complainant not to be a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The appellant has contended that it is a body corporation and a juristic person competent to engage then services of any Advocate in respect of a dispute between the employees and Corporation. However, the learned Forum failed to appreciate that in the instant case the services of respondent-Advocate were hired to defend the Corporation in a dispute between the Corporation and its employees but deficient service were rendered by the Counsel inspite of having been duly paid to appear and defend the claim of the Corporation. The view of the District Forum in holding the complainant Corporation to be involved in commercial activity and dismissing the complaint is erroneous as the commercial activities of the Corporation was not involved in the instant case and the respondent Counsel was engaged to defend and impart the legal services which by no stretch of imagination could be called to be a commercial activity. The appellant has submitted that it is covered under the definition of Consumer as per law laid down the case of Punjab Tourism Development Corporation v. Kali Ram Garg, 2003 (1) C.P.C. 550. The appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and decide the complaint on merits. A perusal of the record of the case, rival contentions of both the parties bring us to the conclusion that the order of the District Forum relegating the appellant/complainant to a remedy in the Civil Court cannot be held erroneous in view of the settled law on the subject. The contention of the appellant that the Corporation is a juristic person competent to engage the services of any lawyer to defend itself in any dispute is not in question. Rather, the preliminary point to be decided is whether the Corporation was a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and complaint instituted by it could be justifiably proceeded with in the District Forum. The question of examining the services rendered to it by the defendant whether deficient or otherwise would arise, subsequently. The main point urged in the appeal is that the services in question were not hired by the Corporation for any commercial purpose but were for defending the Corporation in a dispute between the Corporation and its employees cannot be accepted in view of law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC), wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court elaborately discussed the scope of Section 2(1)(d) in Para 11 of the judgment which reads as under : "Consumer"-(a) in relation to any goods .......; (b) in relation to any services or facilities, means any person who might wish to be provided with the services or facilities otherwise than for the purposes of any business of his; and (c) in relation to any accommodation......"

Since, it is amply clear from the above that the appellant/complainant Corporation does not fall in the definition of consumer. The authority cited in support titled as Punjab Tourism Development Corporation v. Kali Ram Garg (supra), does not give any support to the case of the appellant as the same is clearly distinguished on facts as the main point to be determined was that due to non payment of consideration to the Advocate whether the complaint was maintainable or not, however, in the instant case the facts are totally different and distinguishable, hence the authority cited by the appellant does not apply to the facts of the present case. The order of the District Forum does not need any interference and the same is upheld. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. Appeal dismissed.