PUNJAB LAND DEVELOPMENT AND RECLAMATION CORPORATION LIMITED vs AVTAR KAUR

PRESIDING MemberThis appeal is directed against the order dated 14/2/2003 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [for short, hereinafter, referred to as District Forum-II] in Complaint Case No. 1270 of 1998.2. The relevant facts in brief are as under,The appellant/complainant-The Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Limited has averred that it had engaged the respondent/O.P. Mrs. Avtar Kaur, Advocate for rendering legal services in connection with Writ Petition No. 1854 of 1980 for challenging the award of Labour Court and full fee as per bill submitted and all the relevant official records were handed over to the respondent O.P., Advocate for preparing the case but the respondent/O.P. did not appear on 30/10/1992 due to which the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed in default. The appellant/complainant has further averred that she also did not appear in connected writ petition bearing No. 3308 of 1980 even when asked by the

HONBLE High Court. The appellant/complainant has alleged that due to aforesaid deficient legal services rendered by her, the appellant Corporation suffered and has prayed for compensation on account of losses of Rs. 21,000.00 due to non-appearance and for engaging other Advocate, Rs. 2,00,000.00 for payment of award money in the writ petition due to the fault of respondent/O.P. and Rs. 28,000.00 as the legal fees paid to other Advocate for defending the contempt petition filed by Sh. Kanwar Singh. The appellant/complainant has further prayed to assess the liability of the Corporation which may arise consequent to non-appearance of respondent/O.P. The prayer for a direction to the Advocate to return all the official record got by her for preparing the case has also been made. In the reply filed, in the preliminary objection taken by the respondent/O.P. has submitted that the brief of Writ Petition No. 1854 of 1980 was withdrawn by the appellant/complainant along with original file some time in the year 1981. Since the matter pertains to about 20 years back she does not know the exact dates and months etc. The respondent/O.P. has averred that as per her information when the case came up for regular hearing before the Honble High Court she was not informed, rather another Counsel Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate was engaged due to which she did not appear and now the liability is unjustifiably being fastened upon her. The respondent/O.P. has alleged that all these material facts have been concealed by the appellant/complainant and she has prayed for a direction to the appellant/complainant for production of relevant records to prove the averments. On merits, the averment of being superseded by another Counsel and asked to return the brief (sic) with relevant records has been reiterated. The respondent/O.P. has submitted that only part payment was received by her as full payment was to be made only after the final disposal of the case as per the rules of the appellant Corporation. The respondent/O.P. has submitted that Civil Writ Petition No. 1984 of 1980 was entrusted to Mr. Mohinderjit Singh Sethi, Advocate but the Honble High Court office wrongly mentioned her name in the records. The respondent/O.P. has submitted that her contention is proved by the fact that when the aforesaid civil writ petition came up for regular hearing she was not informed by the appellant/complainant Corporation to defend the case which amply proves that the brief and relevant papers were withdrawn from her by the appellant Corporation and she cannot be held liable for consequences of dismissal or otherwise of aforesaid civil writ petition.

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

THE District Forum held this consumer complaint to be beyond pecuniary jurisdiction as the relief claimed was not less than Rs. 7,49,000.00 due to which the complaint was returned to the complainant to be presented before the State Commission. However, on 15.3.2003 the Act was amended and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum was enhanced to Rs. 20 lacs in view of which fact the complaint was again filed before the District Forum for consideration and decision. The District Forum again dismissed the complaint though on a different ground that the complainant being a commercial Corporation and since 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 complaint 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 corporate and a juristic person, competent to engage the services of any Advocate in respect of a dispute between the employees and Corporation. The learned Forum failed to appreciate that in the instant case the legal services of respondent hired to defend the Corporation but deficient services were rendered by the Counsel in spite 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 in view of law laid down the case of Punjab Tourism Development Corporation v. Kali Ram Garg, 2003 (1) CPC 550, the impugned order be set aside and the complaint be decided on merit. During the arguments, the respondent, Advocate submitted that the power of attorney in the instant case is in favour of Mr. Mohinderjit Singh Sethi, Advocate and nowhere the appellant Corporation has brought any document to prove that she was the Counsel engaged to defend the case. A perusal of the record of the case, rival contentions of both the parties brings us to the conclusion that the order of the District Forum relegating the appellant/complainant with a remedy in the Civil Court cannot be held erroneous in view of the settled law on the subject. The contentions 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 a matter in issue. However, the preliminary point in the instant case 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 Honble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC), wherein the Honble 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....... It is amply clear from the above that the appellant/complainant Corporation does not fall in the definition of consumer. The authority cited in supported titled as Punjab Tourism Development Corporation v. Kali Ram Garg (supra), does not give any support to the case of the appellant as same clearly distinguished on facts as in the case that 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.