MOHAN CHOUKSEY Vs. RAKESH AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.12.2001 passed in Case No.314/2000 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal (for short the 'district Forum'), whereby the complaint for deficiency in service in not filing the revision before the National Commission payment was allowed with an order to return the amount of Rs.1,500/- with interest thereon at the rate of 10% p. a. from 12.11.1997 alongwith Rs.500/- as costs of the proceedings.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this appeal are thus: The appellant is in legal profession and practising as an Advocate at Bhopal. The respondent filed a complaint against the appellant under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'act') alleging that the respondent on telephonic instructions appointed appellant as a Counsel to prepare and file Revision before the National Commission against the order dated 20.10.1997 passed in Appeal No.77 of 1996 Rakesh Agrawal and Ors. V/s. Raju Pudir, M/s. Sonia Enterprise by the State Commission of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/- as an advance, which was paid to him by demand draft No.136777 dated 12.11.1997. However, the appellant did not prepare the revision within the time prescribed hence, the respondent engaged a Counsel at Delhi and filed the Revision before the National Commission, Delhi. The appellant also did not return the fee of Rs.35,000/- and Rs.1,500/- expenses received and assured that the amount would be adjusted in future cases. The respondent approached the appellant for filing a complaint against Punjab National Bank, Vidisha before this Commission as the choice for appointing the appellant as lawyer was due to the fact that the appellant had already an amount of Rs.5,000/- as an advance for providing legal services. The appellant filed complaint No.26/1999, M/s. Span Fine Chemical V/s. Punjab National Bank. As this Commission was not convinced to admit the complaint, therefore, the appellant called the respondent to discuss and for that sent a post-card which was received on 12.7.1999. The respondent reached Bhopal to meet and discuss wherein the appellant handed over a certified copy of the order sheet dated 24.6.1999 passed in Original Complaint No.26/1999 wherein the complainant was permitted to withdraw the complaint with liberty to present the complaint in appropriate Forum of competent pecuniary jurisdiction. The respondent was taken aback and asked the appellant how damages of Rs.16.48 lacs can be reduced to Rs.5.00 lacs only. The appellant in fact hidden the facts as respondent was called to discuss while the complaint was already dismissed as withdrawn. The complainant thereafter taking into consideration the conduct and inefficiency of the appellant approached a Counsel of High Court in the said matter for filing the complaint before this Commission and asked the appellant to return all original documents/papers. On that the appellant stated that he has not received the original documents/papers from the State Commission. Thereafter, respondent wrote letters dated 26.11.1999, 31.1.2000 and 13.3.2000 to return the amount of Rs.5,000/- which was not returned, that gave rise to cause of action. The respondent, therefore, claimed Rs.5,000/- paid as an advance with interest thereon at the rate of 18% p. a. from the date of payment i. e.12.11.1997 alongwith Rs.25,000/- as compensation and costs of litigation.

(3.) The appellant filed defence version in that took the plea of limitation and on merits contended that the amount of Rs.5,000/- included Rs.3,500/- the amount of fee of Appeal No.77/1996 and Rs.1,500/- was for preparation of revision translation of documents, etc. On 12.11.1997 revision was prepared and the documents, etc. were translated but the appellant did not deliver the certified copy of the order not paid the expenses and fee for filing revision before the National Commission at Delhi. On the other hand, respondent filed a revision through a Counsel at Delhi as respondent was in possession of certified copy of the order. In such circumstances, cause of action for alleged non-presentation of revision and for refund of amount arose on 12.11.1997 or at the most adding it a period of one month for filing the revision, hence, the complaint was filed by the respondent on 16.5.2000 is barred by time. If there was any grievance against the appellant for non-filing of revision, the respondent would not have engaged him to file a new complaint case before this Commission. This shows that the respondent never wanted to incur expenditure by engaging a Counsel of Bhopal for filing the revision at Delhi. Therefore, Counsel was engaged at Delhi who filed the revision.