RECLAMATION CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. AVTAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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preliminary objection taken by the respondent/o. P. has submitted that the brief of Writ Petition No.1854 of 1980 was withdrawn by the appellant/complainant along with original file some time in the year 1981.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.