VIRENDRA SINGH Vs. A. P. AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 12-02-2016, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred as "the State Commission") in consumer complaint No.671 of 2015, filed by the present appellant, vide which, the said complaint was ordered to be dismissed in limine.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant, Dr. Virendra Singh filed the consumer complaint in question against the opposite party (OP), Mr. A. P. Agarwal who is a practising lawyer, alleging 'that the said lawyer appearing as his attorney in a case before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had made a wrong statement before that Court, which was against the instructions of his client and got the appeal pending before that Court 'Dismissed as Withdrawn'. It is stated in the consumer complaint that the complainant invested about Rs.50,00,000/- in a Firm, known as Arcadia Commodities And Trading, which had membership of the Multi-Commodities Exchange of India (MCX) as well as the National Commodities Exchange of India Ltd. The complainant opened a Demat Account with the said Firm and deposited a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- between 01-10-2010 and 29-01-2011. Following certain dispute, a claim was lodged by the complainant against Arcadia Commodities And Trading before the Arbitral Tribunal for a sum of Rs.83,25,000/-. The said Tribunal dismissed the claim vide order dated 16-11-2011. The complainant challenged the decision of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by filing a petition, OMP No.153 of 2012, but the said petition was dismissed vide order dated 21-02-2012, passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Aggrieved by the order passed by a single bench of the Hon'ble High Court, the complainant engaged the services of the OP, A.P. Agarwal, Advocate and filed an appeal FAO (OS) No.146 of 2012 before a division bench of the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi. The said appeal was listed for hearing on 11-04-2012. However, vide order passed on the said date, the division bench dismissed the appeal as withdrawn by passing the following order:

(3.) The complainant alleged that the OP-Advocate had withdrawn the appeal without any instructions from the complainant, which amounted to misconduct on his part and had caused severe damage to the complainant. The complainant engaged the services of another advocate and filed an application CM No.14593 of 2013 for recall/review of the order dated 11-04-2012. However, the High Court dismissed the said application vide order dated 17-09-2013 and passed the following order: