TEJA SINGH SANDHU Vs. NAVJIT SINGH BRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a complaint filed by Tej a Singh, the District Forum- II ordered on 9.9.1998 that a sum of Rs.7,500/- shall be payable to the complainant by Mr. Nayjit Brar, Advocate, President, National Consumer Welfare Council, Chandigarh. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted by the complainant for enhancement of compensation alleging that the amount of two cheques dated 20.8.1993 and 20.9.1993 may also be included in the amount of compensation.

(2.) The allegations of the complainant are that one Raj Devinder Singh had delivered 5 cheques to the complainant and these were dishonoured on different dates in the year 1993 and 1994. According to the alleged oral contract, the total fee of the Counsel was settled at Rs.4,400/-. Out of this, the complainant allegedly paid Rs.2,200/- on 20.1.1994. It has been alleged that the first cheque was returned unpaid on 20.1.1994. It has also been alleged that the respondent assured that he shall issue notices in respect of all the cheques to the drawer within a few days, but he failed to issue the same in time and these were returned on 20.1.1994,16.2.1994, 20.8.1993 and 20.2.1994. It was in February, 1994 that the complainant went to the respondent to enquire the response of the legal notices sent by him. The respondent suggested that the complainant should contact him on 4.3.1994 and on that date the first complaint shall be filed against the defaulter. On 4.3.1994 when the complainant went to the respondent, his signatures were obtained on Vakalatnamas, blank papers, etc. and he was informed that 10.3.1994 has been fixed in the Court of CJM, Chandigarh for preliminary hearing. The complainant was then asked to meet him on 28.3.1994. On this date, he was advised to come and meet him on 16.4.1994. Thereafter the complainant felt suspicious and came to know that the complaints were actually not filed. There was misconduct on the part of the respondent and the complainant has sought a compensation of Rs.25,000/- which was the amount equal to the cheques and refund of Rs.2,200/- which was part of the fee handed over to the respondent by him.

(3.) In a reply filed by the respondent, it has been averred that the complainant was not new to the judicial procedures. He filed an application for eviction on behalf of another landlord Khushal Singh and these were lengthy proceedings. In a criminal case, he engaged Mr. A. S. Sukhija as Advocate for the purpose of anticipatory bail on 8.12.1993. His arrest was stayed on 11.12.1993. It was in the aforesaid proceedings of anticipatory bail that he was engaged with Mr. Sukhija as a second Counsel. Since the application for anticipatory bail was mainly argued by Mr. A. S. Sukhija, the complainant wanted refund of Rs.2,200/- which he had given to the respondent exclusively for pressing the aforesaid application. Some legal notices were issued on the instructions of the complainant and some other notices were also issued by Mr. Waraich, Advocate. The complaint was instituted by the complainant under Sec.138 on 14.6.1994 and statement of the complainant was also recorded on 2.7.1994 and notice issued to Raj Devinder Singh for 26.7.1994. At a subsequent stage all the files were returned to the complainant as desired by him and the present complaint has been instituted only to defame the respondent. The complainant had been practising as an Advocate for the last 20 years and the present complaint is the outcome of the grievances which the Counsel now engaged by him has against the respondent. It has also been averred that the present story has been concocted by Mr. Arunjiv Singh Walia, Counsel for the complainant whose licence has been suspended by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana High Court and he is practising after obtaining a temporary stay from the Bar Counsel of India. The respondent did not support Mr. Walia in the Bar Council and it is on account of the grudge which the complainant's Counsel is exhibiting through this complaint.