Ramesh Chauhan vs Mohinder Singh Kanwar

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.11.2013 passed by the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 211 of 2013 - Ramesh Chauhan Vs. Mohinder Singh Kanwar by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge at Shimla in the year 2006 and engaged OP/respondent as an Advocate and paid Rs.10,000/ - as fees. OP committed various acts of deficiency in service while pursuing his suit and in such circumstances, complainant engaged another Counsel in the year 2008. It was further alleged that OP tried to get the suit compromised without his consent, did not place on record all the documents, did not appear in the Court and refused to issue NOC for engaging another Counsel. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that he was paid only Rs.500/ - and when demanded balance fees, complainant asked him to return the brief on false accusations. He denied all the accusations and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Petitioner filed appeal before State Commission, which was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay. Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

AS there is delay of only 8 days in filing revision petition, the delay is condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of proof of deficiency on the part of OP, learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted. Perusal of learned State Commission ''s order clearly reveals that as per authorization in the Power of Attorney respondent was authorized to compromise the suit without consent of the petitioner and further observed that suit was not compromised. As regards non submission of certain documents, learned State Commission rightly observed that all the documents supplied by the complainant were submitted by OP before the Court. As far appearance on 5.8.2008 is concerned, complainant himself appeared before the Civil Judge and sought time for engaging a new Counsel. In such circumstances, it was not obligatory on the part OP to appear before Civil Judge on 5.8.2008.

AS far not granting NOC for engaging Counsel is concerned, learned State Commission observed that new Counsel appeared on behalf of the complainant on 8.8.2008 which makes it abundantly clear that OP had no objection in engaging new Counsel by the Complainant. As far taking brief of defendant of aforesaid Civil Suit in another money suit, OP had every right to appear on behalf of defendant in another suit after ceasing to be Advocate of the complainant and learned State Commission rightly dismissed appeal.

PETITIONER has filed this revision petition without any basis just to waste time of this Commission and with an intention to harass respondent. We deem it proper to dismiss revision petition with cost. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with cost of Rs.5,000/ - to be deposited by the petitioner within 4 weeks with the Consumer Legal Aid account of this Commission by way of Demand Draft payable at New Delhi.

IF petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid cost within the prescribed period then the District Forum, Shimla is directed to recover the cost from the petitioner in accordance with provisions of law and send its compliance report within four weeks, thereafter.