NANDLAL LOHARIYA Vs. JAGDISH CHAND PUROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 31.8.2018 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the order dated 13.7.2018 whereby his appeal was dismissed. The District Forum vide its order dated 13.7.2018 had also dismissed the complaint of the petitioner.

(2.) This order is impugned before me on the ground that there was deficiency in service on the part of the advocates who were engaged to contest complaints Nos.101/2014, 102/2014 and 01/2015. It is submitted that findings of the Fora below is illegal because they have reached to the wrong conclusion.

(3.) I have heard the arguments and perused the record. Admittedly, the petitioner (hereinafter called as 'the complainant') filed complaints Nos.101/2014, 102/2014 and 01/2015 before the District Forum, Pratapgarh against BSNL. All the three complaints of the complainant were dismissed vide order dated 30.6.2016 on merit. After dismissal of the complaints, he filed a complaint against his advocates, alleging deficiency on their part in contesting his case before the District Forum, Pratapgarh. His contentions before the District Forum were that all the three advocates had not performed their duties properly. The complaints were filed with a delay of 365 to 630 days. They did not obtain the call details, copy of the complaint register using the right under Right to Information Act and documents like telephone bills and other important documents were not presented. Even the affidavit of the complainant was not filed and the arguments were not properly done by his advocates. It is because of this reason that all the three complaints were dismissed.