TEJA SINGH SANDHU vs NAVJIT SINGH BRAR

ON a complaint filed by Tej a Singh, the District Forum- II ordered on 9.9.1998 that a sum of Rs. 7,500/- shall be payable to the complainant by Mr. Nayjit Brar, Advocate, President, National Consumer Welfare Council, Chandigarh. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted by the complainant for enhancement of compensation alleging that the amount of two cheques dated 20.8.1993 and 20.9.1993 may also be included in the amount of compensation.

THE allegations of the complainant are that one Raj Devinder Singh had delivered 5 cheques to the complainant and these were dishonoured on different dates in the year 1993 and 1994. According to the alleged oral contract, the total fee of the Counsel was settled at Rs. 4,400/-. Out of this, the complainant allegedly paid Rs. 2,200/- on 20.1.1994. It has been alleged that the first cheque was returned unpaid on 20.1.1994. It has also been alleged that the respondent assured that he shall issue notices in respect of all the cheques to the drawer within a few days, but he failed to issue the same in time and these were returned on 20.1.1994,16.2.1994, 20.8.1993 and 20.2.1994. It was in February, 1994 that the complainant went to the respondent to enquire the response of the legal notices sent by him. THE respondent suggested that the complainant should contact him on 4.3.1994 and on that date the first complaint shall be filed against the defaulter. On 4.3.1994 when the complainant went to the respondent, his signatures were obtained on Vakalatnamas, blank papers, etc. and he was informed that 10.3.1994 has been fixed in the Court of CJM, Chandigarh for preliminary hearing. THE complainant was then asked to meet him on 28.3.1994. On this date, he was advised to come and meet him on 16.4.1994. THEreafter the complainant felt suspicious and came to know that the complaints were actually not filed. THEre was misconduct on the part of the respondent and the complainant has sought a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- which was the amount equal to the cheques and refund of Rs. 2,200/- which was part of the fee handed over to the respondent by him. In a reply filed by the respondent, it has been averred that the complainant was not new to the judicial procedures. He filed an application for eviction on behalf of another landlord Khushal Singh and these were lengthy proceedings. In a criminal case, he engaged Mr. A.S. Sukhija as Advocate for the purpose of anticipatory bail on 8.12.1993. His arrest was stayed on 11.12.1993. It was in the aforesaid proceedings of anticipatory bail that he was engaged with Mr. Sukhija as a second Counsel. Since the application for anticipatory bail was mainly argued by Mr. A.S. Sukhija, the complainant wanted refund of Rs. 2,200/- which he had given to the respondent exclusively for pressing the aforesaid application. Some legal notices were issued on the instructions of the complainant and some other notices were also issued by Mr. Waraich, Advocate. The complaint was instituted by the complainant under Section 138 on 14.6.1994 and statement of the complainant was also recorded on 2.7.1994 and notice issued to Raj Devinder Singh for 26.7.1994. At a subsequent stage all the files were returned to the complainant as desired by him and the present complaint has been instituted only to defame the respondent. The complainant had been practising as an Advocate for the last 20 years and the present complaint is the outcome of the grievances which the Counsel now engaged by him has against the respondent. It has also been averred that the present story has been concocted by Mr. Arunjiv Singh Walia, Counsel for the complainant whose licence has been suspended by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana High Court and he is practising after obtaining a temporary stay from the Bar Counsel of India. The respondent did not support Mr. Walia in the Bar Council and it is on account of the grudge which the complainant''s Counsel is exhibiting through this complaint.

After dealing with the oral as well as documentary evidence, the finding of fact of the District Forum is as under : "Under the proviso (b) to Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, the notice to the drawer of the dishonoured cheque has to be given within 15 days of the receipt of that information from the Bank by the payee. In the case before this Forum, the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party took place only in respect of the first cheque dated 20.7.1993 which bounded on 20.1.1994. The opposite party was engaged for issuing legal notice on that very day. The copy of notice CI indicates that this notice was issued on 16.2.1994 long after the expiry of the period of 15 days as laid down in proviso (b) of Section 138 ibid. The other two notices C2 and C3 were issued well within the stipulated period and on that account, no deficiency in service can be attributed to the opposite party. As regards the non filing of the complaints of those two cheques dated 20.8.1993 and 20.9.1993, a duty was cast upon the complainant to have informed the opposite party that in spite of the notices issued to the defaulter, the amount had not been paid to the complainant within the time mentioned in the notices. The complainant should have further told the opposite party to go ahead with the complaints in those two cases. On this point, there is no specific averment in the complaint or affidavit by the complainant that he had given specific information to the opposite party in respect of the amounts of cheques dated 20.8.1993 and 20.9.1993 and that the opposite party should initiate the criminal complaint in the concerned Court. In the absence of this material before the Forum, we are unable to hold the opposite party guilty of deficiency in service qua the cheques dated 20.8.1993 and 20.9.1993."

THE District Forum has rightly observed that there was no evidence to support that there were specific instructions to initiate criminal complaints in respect of the cheques dated 20.8.1993 and 20.9.1993. Even otherwise, a. Lawyer is not to be substituted in place of a debtor of the complainant. THE respondent has pointed out that he has been absolved by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana High Court. However, the allegations put forward before the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana have not been brought on record. During the course of arguments, the respondent has criticised the conduct of the complainant and his Counsel. However, the respondent has not attempted any cross-appeal. THE conclusion is that there is no good ground for enhancement of compensation awarded by the District Forum and the appeal for enhancement is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.