ORDER

                                       MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   The instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying therein that the O.Ps. be directed to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation for the harassment & mental agony caused to him by them.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant, as put forth in the complaint, is that he is resident of Hoshiarpur. A case titled as ‘Harbans Lal vs. Pardeep Kumar’ was decided against him by the court of Mrs. Rajwinder Kaur, PCS, Dasuya, vide order dated 1.12.2004. He contacted Sh. K. C. Mahajan Advocate in order to file an appeal against the said order. He had engaged Sh. K. C. Mahajan Advocate, Hoshiarpur, to file an application for remanding back the case to the lower court at Dasuya. The O.Ps. were also to file an application for additional evidence. The fees, as were settled for the said cases, were paid by him to the O.Ps., who also got signed from him on the Vakalatnama and also on some blank papers for the purpose of filing of appeal & the aforesaid application. The O.Ps. filed the civil Appeal No. 5 of 13.1.2005 titled as ‘Pardeep Kumar  vs. Harbans Lal & Ors.’ Harbans Lal also filed Civil Appeal No. 38 of 12.3.2005 titled as ‘Harbans Lal vs. Pardeep Kumar’. The O.Ps. had also taken extra fee from him for contesting the said case. The O.Ps. did not draft the appeal & stay application, properly, as they were under the influence of the Advocates, namely, Rajeev Mehta, Raman Mehta and Neena Mehta. The O.Ps. instead of appearing in the said cases personally, used to send their junior to attend the same. Even the O.Ps. did not move any application seeking permission to lead additional evidence. Resultantly, on 13.3.2008, the appeal was dismissed under the influence of sons & daughter of  defendant No.3. The said act of the O.Ps. amounts to deficiency in service. He had sent a complaint against the O.Ps. to the Bar Association, Hoshiarpur, through registered post, but no action was taken. Hence, this complaint.  

3.                On being put to notice, the O.Ps. filed a joint written version taking preliminary objections; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear & try the present complaint; that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.; that the present complaint was filed by the complainant at the instance & instigation of Sh. B.S. Chowdhary Advocate, who was earlier working as a  paid junior counsel with O.P. No.1, and he was removed from the office of the O.P. No.1 as he had committed some irregularities and there were certain circumstances, which cannot be explained, thus, the present complaint is the mastermind of said Sh. B.S. Chowdhary Advocate; that the complaint is false, quite frivolous, vexatious, motivated one; that it is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that the Vakalatnama signed by the complainant also bears the names of other Advocates, namely, Mona Sahni, Subharata Thakur & Ranjan Thakur Advocates; that the complainant had also engaged Sh. J.P. Walia Advocate to contest the appeal, titled—‘Pardeep Kumar vs. Harbans Lal etc.’, who had also filed Vakalatnama on his behalf on 16.9.2005 before the Hon’ble court of Sh. Jaspal Singh, the Learned Additional District Judge Hoshiarpur and he continuously used to appear in the said case alongwith the O.P. No. 1 till the hearing of the final arguments; that said Sh. J.P. Walia Advocate is senior to the O.P. No.1 in profession & also otherwise; that the complainant had concealed the material facts from this Forum as he had not disclosed about all the proceedings, which took place in civil appeal No. 5 of 13.1.2005 & Civil Appeal No. 38 of 12.5.2005; that from the proceedings reproduced in para No.3 of the preliminary objections, it is clear that the order of status quo was obtained by arguing the case at the preliminary stage and further an application for leading additional evidence was also moved; that the appeal was vehemently argued by the O.P. No.1 as is evident from the perusal of the contents of the judgment passed in the said appeal case; that from the grounds of appeal submitted by the O.P. No.1 on behalf of the complainant , it is apparent that each & every issue and documents were challenged in the said grounds of appeal; that even in the arguments every point was assailed, which was required to be assailed by the O.P. No.1, for the benefit of the complainant; that the mere fact that the appeal was dismissed on merits does not make out a case of deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1 as an Advocate is only bound to assist the court and not to bring any favourable result for his client; that the complainant is himself stopped by his own acts, conduct, admissions and acquiescence to file the present complaint; that he remained present on each & every date of hearing in the said case; that the interim temporary injunction order was obtained by him through his junior counsel; that as mentioned in the complaint itself, the complainant had already moved a complaint to the Bar Council, thus, he has already availed his remedy before the Bar Council, therefore, he is entitled to avail other remedy by filing the instant complaint and that the complainant is a clever litigant and has filed the instant complaint with the intend to blackmail the O.P. No.1. On merits, it is admitted that the suit titled—‘Harbans Lal vs. Pardeep Kumar’ was decided against the complainant by the Hon’ble court of Mrs. Rajwinder Kaur, PCS, the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dasuya and that the appeal against the said order was filed by the O.P. alongwith other Advocates, who were working in the office of the O.Ps. It is denied that the O.Ps . were engaged as Advocates to file an application for remand back/reverse of the case to the lower court at Dasuya.  It is stated that an Advocate cannot anticipate any order, which is to be passed by the court. There is no provision for making any application for remand back/reversal of the case to the lower court. The O.Ps. were engaged simply to file an appeal against the order passed by the lower court and to exercise their professional skill to assist the Hon’ble appellate court. The complainant seems to be a frustrated person, who was anticipating favourable order from the court. The application for leading additional evidence was filed on 8.3.2008 on behalf of the appellant i.e. the complainant and the same was also effectively argued on 11.3.2008 alongwith the appeal. The two appeals were consolidated and the appeal filed by Harbans Lal was also dismissed after hearing the arguments of the O.Ps. It is stated to be wrong that any extra fee was charged from the complainant for filing application for leading additional evidence. The complainant is trying to defame the O.Ps. in their professional career, by playing mischief. It is denied that the O.P. had obtained signatures of the complainant on any blank paper. The O.P. never obtains signatures of any client on any blank paper. The complainant being a literate person had signed the Vakalatnama after going through its terms & conditions and also the contents of the appeal. It is admitted that Harbans Lal had also filed an appeal against the order of the lower court, but it is stated that no extra fees was taken from the complainant to contest the same; rather the complainant of his own had engaged Sh. J.P. Walia Advocate alongwith the O.Ps. It is reiterated that the grounds of appeal are self speaking and the judgment of the trial court was assailed on each & every point. The O.Ps. do not know any Advocate, namely, Rajiv Mehta or Advocate Raman Mehta. However, Neena Mehta Advocate had remained junior counsel with Sh. J.P. Walia Advocate. The said Advocates were not in picture at the time of drafting of the appeal. As per record of the appeal, Harbans Lal died on 5.2.2007, as stated by his counsel. An application for impeading his legal representatives was filed on 8.3.2007 and it was only for the first time that on 12.4.2007, the O.Ps. came to know about the fact that Neeraj Mehta, Naveen Mehta and Anu Mehta were legal representative of said Harbans Lal, but the O.Ps. do not know about any relationship of Rajeev Mehta, Raman Mehta and Neena Mehta with Harbans Lal or any other person concerning the appeal. It was the family dispute as the appellant and the respondents were real brothers, but the O.Ps. do not know about their relations with Rajeev Mehta, Raman Mehta and Neena Mehta Advocates, in any manner. It is further stated that the complainant also used to attend the case on each & every date alongwith the O.P. No.1 as well as Sh. J.P. Walia Advocate and no objection was every raised that his appeal case was not conducted by them properly. It is reiterated that the application for leading additional evidence was duly moved, but no evidence can be brought on record unless & until the application is allowed. The Learned Additional District Judge had dismissed the appeal in question on merits. It is denied that the appeal was dismissed under the influence of sons & daughter of defendant No. 3. It is denied that the O.Ps. had ever received any notice from any Bar Council or Bar Association, regarding the pendency of any proceedings before any Bar Council or Bar Association. It is stated that the instant complaint is based upon the baseless allegations. Such type of scrupulous litigants should be condemned by the Consumer Forum. All other allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with special costs of Rs.25,000/-, it being motivated, false, frivolous and vexatious one.

4.                The complainant filed rejoinder to the written version filed by the O.Ps. stating that he never engaged Sh. B.S. Chowdhary Advocate as his counsel. Even he had never engaged Mona Sahni, Subhartha Thakur or Ranjan Thakur Advocates as his counsel. It is admitted that he had engaged Sh. J.P. Walia Advocate, but it is stated that he was engaged only to submit an application for leading additional evidence. It is stated that neither Sh. K.S. Thakur Advocate was present nor he had appeared before the court concerned as alleged in the written version. The proceedings sheets are totally wrong & denied. The O.Ps. have suppressed the true facts & misled this Forum. The O.Ps. had neither appeared before the court concerned nor had properly pursued the case. The averments made in the complaint were also reiterated and it is stated that the contents of the written version filed by the O.Ps. are false & vexatious and he is not liable to pay any costs, as prayed for in the said written version.

5.                On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavits Ex. C-1 & C-2, various other documents Ex. C-3 to C-34, Ex. CW-35 to Ex. CW-44 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, Sh. K.C. Mahajan Advocate i.e. O.P. No. 1 tendered certain documents Ex. R1 to R33 and closed the evidence on behalf of the O.Ps. On 01.06.2012, the complainant had also filed written interrogatories to the persons, who had filed their affidavits in evidence of the O.Ps., as per order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, in Revision Petition No. 5 of 2011 and the replies of the concerned witnesses to the said interrogatories were also filed by the O.Ps.

6.                The complainant had refused to argue the case and the arguments as addressed by the learned counsel for the O.Ps. assisted by Sh. K.C. Mahajan i.e. O.P. No.1 were heard. We have also gone through the record including the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the O.Ps., carefully.

7.                The learned counsel for the O.Ps. submitted that the first allegation leveled by the complainant against them is that he had engaged Sh. K. C. Mahajan Advocate, Hoshiarpur, to file an appeal against the order dated 1.12.2004, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya, in a case titled ‘Harbans Lal vs. Pardeep Kumar and others’ and to contest the Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2005 titled ‘Harbans Lal vs. Pardeep Kumar’, and also for filing of an application for remand back/reverse the case to the lower court,  but the O.Ps. did not draft the appeal and stay application properly and did not contest the case, properly, as they were under the influence of the Advocates, namely, Rajeev Mehta, Raman Mehta and Neena Mehta, who are the sons & daughter of his brother, Rajinder Parshad i.e. defendant No.3 in the said case, as a result of which the said appeal was dismissed. The learned counsel further submitted that it is incorrect that the O.Ps. were engaged by the complainant to file an application for remand back/reverse of the case, as there is no provision to file an application for remanding back the case to the lower court. However, he had engaged them to file appeal against the order dated 1.12.2004, passed against him by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya, in a case titled ‘Harbans Lal vs. Pardeep Kumar’, accordingly, they had drafted & filed the appeal and the stay application, properly and had challenged each & every issue/document in the grounds of appeal. The entire evidence and the documents pertaining to the case were discussed in the appeal, which was drafted in 7 pages with 12 paras and the grounds of appeal are self speaking and the judgment of trial court was assailed on each & every point. The appeal was admitted and stay was also granted by the court concerned. There was no question for them, being under the influence of the Advocates, namely, Rajeev Mehta, Raman Mehta and Neena Mehta, because as per legal profession they were to watch the interest of the party, as per law, who had engaged their services. He further submitted that no doubt, the said appeal was dismissed on 13.3.2008, but the O.Ps. with their best professional skills had contested the same. As a matter of fact, no advocate/counsel can get an order in favour of the party, who has engaged him/her because the court is to decide the case, after going through the merits of the case. Thus, the allegation leveled by the complainant is misconceived and he has leveled the said allegation just to defame them, out of frustration.

                   It may be stated that as per law, an appeal/revision lies against any order passed by the lower court. Accordingly, the O.Ps. had filed a Civil Appeal No. 5 of 13.1.2015 titled as ‘Pardeep Kumar vs. Harbans Lal & Ors.’(Ex. C24/ Ex. R26) before the appellate court, alongwith application for interim stay, against the judgment and decree dated 1.12.2004 passed by the court of Mrs. Rajwinder Kaur, PCS, Civil Judge, Jr. Div., Dasuya, in a case titled as ‘Harbans Lal vs. Pardeep Kumar’. From the perusal of copy of order dated 12.01.2005 passed in the above said appeal, (Ex. C5), it is evident that the appeal was admitted and on the stay application, notice was ordered to be issued to respondent No.1 for 18.2.2005 and in the meanwhile both the parties were directed not to raise further construction over the property in question. No doubt, the complainant has alleged that the O.Ps. did not draft the appeal and the stay application properly, as they were under the influence of the Advocates, namely, Rajeev Mehta, Raman Mehta and Neena Mehta, who are the sons & daughter of his brother, Rajinder Parshad i.e. defendant No.3, but he has failed to prove the said allegation, firstly, he has not specified as to how and in what manner, the appeal and the stay application were not drafted properly and which ground/issue was not pleaded in the said appeal by the O.Ps. and secondly, no concrete evidence has been produced by him to prove that the O.Ps. had got his appeal dismissed under the influence of the Advocates, namely, Rajeev Mehta, Raman Mehta and Neena Mehta, who are the sons & daughter of his brother, Rajinder Parshad i.e. defendant No.3. Therefore, the allegations leveled by the complaiannt to that effect are found to be basless.

8.                The learned counsel for the O.Ps. further submitted that so far as the allegation of the complainant that the O.Ps. instead of appearing, personally, before the court concerned, used to send their junior to attend the case is concerned, on each & every date, one or the other counsel, in whose favour the complainant had signed the Power of Attorney, had put in appearance on his behalf and his case was never dismissed in default, as is evident from the copies of the zimni orders, Ex.R4 to Ex.R20, therefore, the allegation leveled to this effect is also not tenable.

                    From the perusal of copy of Power of Attorney (Ex. C3/Ex.R2), it is evident that the complainant himself had given Power of Attorney, to contest the appeal case in question, in favour of Mr. B.S. Chowdhary, Miss Mona Sahni, Mr. Subrata Thakur, Mr. Ranjan Thakur Advocates alongwith the O.Ps., therefore, any one of the said Advocates, in whose favour the Power of Attorney was given by him, could have put in appearance in the said case. Even from the perusal of copies of the zimni orders, Ex.R4 to Ex.R20, it is evident that on each & every date one or the other counsel had put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and his case was never dismissed in default. Even in the copy of judgment dated 13.3.2008(Ex. R24), presence of Shri K.C. Mahajan Advocate, as counsel for the Appellant, Pardeep Kumar, has been specifically mentioned. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this contention of the complainant also and discard the same.

9.                 The learned counsel for the O.Ps. further submitted that the complainant has also alleged that the O.P. No.1 did not move application for leading additional evidence. In the rejoinder filed by him to the written version filed on behalf of the O.Ps., in its para No.2, on merits, he had alleged that the O.P. refused to move application for additional evidence and did not put his signatures on the same, but the allegations leveled by him are baseless because the O.P. No.1 neither get the application in question drafted/typed nor refused to put his signature on the same, or cut down his name typed on it.  He further submitted that it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant had also engaged Sh. J.P. Walia, Advocate, on 16.09.2005, to contest the said appeal, along with them, as is evident from his Power of Attorney, Ex.R3, and the copy of zimni order dated 16.09.2015 (ExR8). From the copy brief of Sh. J.P. Walia Advocate Ex. C14, it is evident that said Sh. J.P. Walia Advocate also used to attend his case till decision of the same on 13.03.2008.

                   From the bare reading of copy of zimni order dated 08.03.2008, Ex.R19, it is apparent that presence of the counsel for the parties was duly marked and the application for additional evidence was filed by the appellant. For the sake of arguments, even if we believe the contention of the complainant that the O.P. No.1 had refused to file the application for leading additional evidence on his behalf, in that circumstances, he could have filed the same through Sh. J.P. Walia, Advocate, to whom he had allegedly engaged, only for the said purpose. However, he preferred to file the same, himself, for the reasons best known to him, but he has failed to prove that the name of the O.P. No.1 typed on the said application was cut down by the O.P. No.1 only. It may be stated that the O.P. No.1 had argued the said application along with the appeal on 13.03.2008, however, the same was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide its order dated 13.03.2008 Ex.R21. facing with this situation, we feel that even this allegation leveled by the complainant is also baseless.

10.              The learned counsel for the O.Ps. further submitted that in para No.2 of the preliminary objections taken in the rejoinder filed by the complainant, it has been stated that he had engaged Sh. J.P. Walia Advocate, only for filing of an application for leading additional evidence, but from the bare perusal of Power of Attorney of said Sh. J.P. Walia Advocate,(Ex.R3), it is evident that he had engaged Sh. J.P. Walia Advocate, on 16.09.2005, to contest the appeal and not for the purpose of filing an application, for leading additional evidence, only. Thus, his stand taken to the effect that he had engaged Sh. J.P. Walia Advocate to file an application, for leading additional evidence only, stands falsified.

                   We find force in this contention of the learned counsel for the O.Ps. because from the perusal of Power of Attorney of Sh. J.P. Walia Advocate,(Ex.R3) and from the copy of brief of Sh. J.P. Walia Advocate, Ex.C14, it is clear that the complainant had engaged said Advocate to contest the appeal case and not only for filing of an application for leading additional evidence.

11.              The learned counsel for the O.Ps. further submitted that the plea taken by the complainant in the application dated 19.02.2016 bearing MA No. 14 of 2016 that he has not yet closed the interrogatories is not tenable, because vide order dated 12.1.2012, passed in the Review Application No. 206 of 2011 in Revision Petition No.3036 of 2011, the Hon’ble National Commission had given liberty to the complainant to file written interrogatories to the persons, who had filed their affidavits in their evidence. Accordingly, he had filed interrogatories to the witnesses concerned. He further submitted that although the complainant had put very vague & irrelevant questions to the said witnesses by way of the questionnaire filed by him, yet reply to the said interrogatories were given by the persons concerned.

                   From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the complainant had filed the interrogatories to the witnesses concerned on 1.6.2012, which were quite lengthy, and even replies to the same, were filed by the O.Ps. on behalf of the said witnesses on 08.09.2014.  Thus, the contention put force by the complainant, in the aforesaid application, that he has not yet closed the interrogatories, is found to be baseless, especially, at the belated stage, when the case stood fixed for hearing final arguments.

12.              The learned counsel for the O.Ps. further submitted that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and the instant frivolous complaint was filed by the complainant just to harass & defame them for some illegal motive/gain. He is not only a chronic litigant, but is in the habit of complaining against each & every lawyer, judge and officers at various Forums. Such type of unscrupulous litigant should be condemned. He had challenged each & every order before the higher authority, just to cause delay in disposal of the instant complaint case, as is evident from the proceedings, facts & circumstances of the instant complaint. Even the Revision Petition No. 2302 of 2012 filed by him against the order dated 26.4.2012 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, in RP No. 66 of 2011, was dismissed by the Hon’ble National Commission, with cost of Rs.5000/-, holding the same to be a frivolous one, having no legal basis.

                   We find force in the above said contention of the learned counsel for the O.Ps. because from the facts of this case, it is evident that at various stages, the complainant had challenged the order passed by the authorities concerned, and used to file one after another application, apparently to cause delay in disposal of this complaint.

13.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint, consequently, the same is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. It is pertinent to mention here that the instant complaint could not be disposed of within the stipulated period , as prescribed in the Act, because of the act & conduct of the complainant himself, which is self-explanatory on record.

14.              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 24.02.2016                                        PRESIDENT

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.