Narinder Kumar Suneja vs R.K. Goel

HEARD the revision petitioner in person. This revision petition has been filed against the concurrent judgments and orders of the Fora below. Revision petitioner is an Advocate who has argued his case with great enthusiasm before us. His main contention is that the complainant was his classmate during his academic career. He says in all fairness he has not issued receipt for the amount of Rs. 10,000 paid as legal fees by the complainant/respondent. Complainant/respondent had executed his power of attorney/Vakalatnama in his favour. Once he had signed the Vakalatnama he cannot ask the petitioner to cancel the same at his whims and fancies. The complainant has wasted his valuable time in connection with the case when the latter met and sought expert advice from the petitioner. In this connection, he submitted that there was no deficiency at all on the part of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

LEARNED Counsel read para 8(i) of the appeal memorandum before the State Commission which reads as under: "That the learned Forum has exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order beyond pleadings and it is a trite law that case beyond pleadings cannot be set up by a Court thereby putting into the mouth of the party which, never pleaded or pointed to. In the instant case entire controversy involved around whether the appellant can be held guilty of deficient of service on his part when it is axiomatically not been pleaded by the respondent for any service what to talk of proper service as taken by the learned Forum itself. It is not abstrusive to understand that a Counsel cannot file a case till he is provided with the require Court file and complete copy of the challan which was never provided to the appellant. It is admitted fact that the respondent handed over only power of attorney, two blank papers, illegible photocopy of the FIR and the part payment of the legal fee, without knowing the name of the Court or the perusal of the zimni orders passed from time -to -time by the learned Trial Court, the case could not be filed particularly when the respondent has asked the appellant not to file the case after having engaged the appellant as his Counsel, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent to ask for the return of the part payment already paid to the appellant. The appellant has always been ready to file the case provided he was given all the papers by the respondent. Thus, the findings of the Forum regarding deficiency in service cannot withstand the legal scrutiny and the question of swindling does not arise at all when the appellant has been duly engaged by the respondent. Thus the impugned order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone,"

IN this connection, it is worthwhile to go through para 4 of the judgment of the State Commission, which reads as follows: "The learned District Forum in the analysis of the complaint was of the view that the only question to be gone into as whether the OP was entitled to retain the fee when he did not perform the duty for which the fee was meant and in the view of the learned District Forum, the answer was in the negative. Discussing the issue with regard to the maintainability of the complaint before the Consumer Fora, the learned District Forum clarified in the order that the Bar Council had examined the complaint of the complainant only with regard to any misconduct on the part of its Member whereas the complaint before the District Forum was to determine whether the OP had rendered proper service to the complainant for which he had charged the fee and since both the authorities i.e. the Bar Council and the Consumer Fora work in different fields, the complaint in view of the learned District Forum was maintainable before the Consumer Fora."

This Commission in D.K. Gandhi v. M. Mathias , III (2007) CPJ 337 (NC)=Revision Petition No. 1392 of 2006 dated 6th August, 2007, has observed as follows: In the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=(1994) 1 SCC 243, at pages 254 -255, wherein the Apex Court observed as under: "The concept of service thus is very wide."

The word service'' has been defined by the Consumer Protection Act as under: " service'' means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service."

The Court pointed out that the main clause itself is very wide. It applies to any service made available to potential users. The use of the word any'' in the context it has been used in Clause (o) indicates that it has been used in wider sense extending from one to all. In the case of Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and Others, III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=I (1996) CLT 81 (SC)=1995 (6) SCC 651, the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "In the matter of professional liability, professions differ from other occupations for the reason that professions operate in spheres where success cannot be achieved in every case and very often success or failure depends upon factors beyond the professional man''s control."

In Kishore Lal v. Chairman, Employees'' State Insurance Corpn., I (2008) CPJ 13 (SC)=(2007) 4 SCC 579, the Hon''ble Apex Court observed: "It has been held in numerous cases of this Court that jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora has to be construed liberally so as to bring many cases under it for their speedy disposal. The Act being a beneficial legislation, it should receive a liberal construction."

ACCORDINGL Y , the National Commission held that this Commission has taken a consistent view that if there is deficiency in service rendered by the Lawyers, complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is maintainable.

THE ratio of the judgment quoted above is squarely applicable to the case under consideration. Accordingly, we do not find any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission warranting our intervention under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. R.P. dismissed.