V S SHUKLA Vs. BRIJESH KUMAR DWIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed against order dated 30.11.96 in Case No.205/95 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewa (hereafter referred to as District Forum) by which they dismissed the complaint of complainant. While dismissing the complaint, the District Forum held that the complainant was free to engage another Counsel to plead his case in Labour Court. They also ordered the complainant to pay costs amounting to Rs.400/to the opposite party. Being aggrieved by the order, the complainant/appellant has filed this appeal in M. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereafter referred to as State Commission) on 6.12.96.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are as follows: appellant was working as Draftsman in Tones Hydral Project, Sirmour, Rewa, which is a branch of Bharat Heavy Electricals. The appellant fell ill and was on leave for a long period. He sent applications periodically and his leave was also sanctioned from time-to-time. However, when he joined duties after being declared fit to join, he was served with an order No.1854 dated 1.10.90 removing him from service. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed a case in Labour Court, Rewa and for this purpose engaged the respondent as his Advocate and paid him Rs.800/- (Rupees eight hundred only) as full fee for this purpose, as demanded by respondent. In addition, he paid for typing. Court fee stamps and other miscellaneous expenditure on the date of hearing. Appellant has averred that the respondent did not plead his case properly and in spite of his request did not agree to file application on 12.1.95 in the Court. As a result, the appellant had to do the same, himself together with an affidavit in support of his application which the respondent had obtained back from the Court earlier and had returned the same to the appellant with his file on 15.1.95, indicating his inability to plead his case further. The complainant/appellant complained to the opposite party Nos.2, 3 and 4 about the conduct of opposite party No.1. When no action was taken by them, he filed a case in District Forum, Rewa against all the four opposite parties. The District Forum after the first hearing ordered on 30.1.96 to drop opposite party Nos.2, 3 and 4 and fixed further date of hearing the case against opposite party No.1. Appellant filed a revision petition in State Commission against order-dated 30.1.96 of the District Forum, but this was allowed to be dismissed as not pressed by him. The case against opposite party No.1/respondent continued and was decided by order-dated 30.11.96 against which this appeal has been filed. In their order-dated 30.11.96, the District Forum dismissed his complaint and ordered to pay cost of Rs.400/- to opposite party No.1/respondent. They, however, specifically held that the complainant was free to engage any other Lawyer. In this appeal, the appellant has prayed for compensation for mental agony suffered on account of non-cooperation of respondent and he is being required to plead his case himself. He also prayed for an order to allow him to engage another Advocate which according to him was not permitted by respondent.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for appellant on the question of admission and stay and have also perused the record of District Forum. The point for decision in this appeal is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1 /respondent and whether the findings of the District Forum meet the ends of justice in this case. The record of the District Forum reveals that both the parties had filed affidavit before them. In a well reasoned order, the District Forum found the version of respondent more coherent and logical, while the facts narrated by the appellant did not appear convincing and logical. During the hearing before us appellant failed to convince us that the view taken by the District Forum was faulty on logical, reasonable and legal grounds. He merely continued to express his apprehension that he would not be allowed to engage another Advocate in spite of the order of District Forum because his complaint was dismissed. Having given anxious thoughts to this appeal, we have failed to find any grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum. However, we hasten to reemphasize that the appellant should feel free to engage any other Advocate to plead his case.