VIRENDER KUMAR GUPTA Vs. ANIL KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.Virender Kumar Gupta, Petitioner in this case has come in revision being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission ) in favour of Anil Kumar Jain, Advocate (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent ).

(2.) The facts of the case according to the Petitioner are that he had engaged the Respondent as his counsel who had assured the Petitioner for appearing in the court on various dates to defend Petitioner s case which he failed to do on a number of occasions. Specifically, on 28.03.1998, Respondent in connivance with the other party, deliberately and intentionally did not appear in the Execution Proceedings in favour of the Petitioner which was therefore dismissed in default. Respondent also did not inform the Petitioner about this for about a year and thereafter on 15.02.1999 to cover up his tracks, he filed an application for restoration of the Execution mentioning the word pending sine die implying thereby that he was not aware that execution proceedings had been dismissed in default. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent was fully aware that there is no provision as per law for restoration of execution proceedings and he therefore, acted illegally and with malafide intention to harm the interests of the Petitioner and thus misused his position as an Advocate. As a result of this, Petitioner had to suffer irreparable loss because the Execution got dismissed in default and the litigation which was in his favour was of no use. Petitioner further stated that he suffered a heart attack because of this incident and was admitted to Escorts Hospital where he had to pay Rs.1 lakh for his treatment. Petitioner, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- from the Respondent.

(3.) Respondent has denied that there was any contract of service between him and the Petitioner and stated that it was only on 15.02.1999 that the Petitioner approached the Respondent through telephone and requested him to file an application for restoration of Execution Proceedings which he was informed were adjourned sine die after the appeal filed by one Kuldeep Bakshi was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. Respondent further stated that the Petitioner despite promising to pay him Rs.10,500/- as fees, did not pay him a single paisa even after repeated reminders and filed a complaint before the District Forum to avoid payment of fees. Respondent reiterated that he never appeared on behalf of the Petitioner in any case including execution proceedings, apart from the case mentioned on 15.02.1999, and he was thus not aware of any litigation in which the Petitioner was involved.