SURAT SINGH RATHI Vs. SHIV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the "Act) assails the order dtd. 26/10/2017 in First Appeal No. 737 of 2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (in short, the State Commission) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against order dtd. 4/7/2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (in short, the District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 295 of 2014.

(2.) The facts as per the petitioner are that the petitioner and one J.K. Rohilla, Advocate were engaged by the respondents for legal services in two Civil Suits instituted in 2011. Respondents filed a complaint before the District Forum for losses suffered by them due to deficiency in service as they had to engage a new counsel. Respondents also engaged the petitioner in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 55 of 2011 before the Additional District Judge, Sonepat on a pro bono basis. On contest, the District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered payment of Rs.1,00,000.00 for rendering deficient services and causing mental agony and harassment. The State Forum dismissed the appeal on the basis of this Commissions orders in D.K. Gandhi Vs. M. Mathias, (2007) 2 CPC 422 dtd. 6/8/2007, which was stayed by the Honble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 3052 of 2008.

(3.) This order is impugned in this petition on the grounds that (i) the judgment in D.K. Gandhi (supra) is not applicable to the instant case and the same is also stayed by the Honble Supreme Court; (ii) the respondents are not consumers under the Act as no proof of consideration for services has been evidenced; (iii) awarding compensation is without basis as there no evidence on record regarding the loss incurred by the respondents; (iv) a complaint of cheating is not maintainable under sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act; (v) orders of the fora below are perverse.