PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                             CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.27/2024

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member,

Shri Prem Prakash Panigrahi, Aged about 61 years

S/O-Late NarendraPanigrahi,

R/O- Sakhipada PS-Dhanupali,

Po/Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha-768001.                     .……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

Sri. GobindaBehera, S/O-Late Khali Behera,

ML-15, JagannathMandir Colony, Budharaja,

Sambalpur, Odisha-768004.                                 …...……….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant       :- Self
2. For the O.P.s                       :- Sri. M.K. Sharma & Associates

Date of Filing:29.01.2024,  Date of Hearing :06.05.2024,  Date of Judgement :18:06.2024

Presented byDr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The Case of the Complainant is that the O.P. is a Railway contractor and on the approach of Complainant the O.P. agreed to undertake repair work of the old house of Complainant at Sakhipada. The O.P. agreed to complete the repair work for Rs. 60,000/- for full and final completion of the repair work. The O.P. also assured to adjust the amount which he owes to the Complainant to-wards notice dated 05.10.2023 which was treated as an advance. The Complainant was to pay balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- after completion of the repair work. The O.P. agreed to complete the work by 30^th Nov. 2023 but failed to do so.

The O.P. is deficient in his service and unfair in trade practice as failed to perform his part of contract. Being aggrieved complaint has been filed.

2. The O.P. in his version submitted that the O.P. is a Railway contractor but does not perform any personal maintenance works or provide any service to any one. The O.P. has no knowledge about any repairing work in the house of Complainant. The O.P. received a notice dated 05.1.2023 and this is manufactured case of the Complainant to drag the O.P. to court as a consumer. The demand made by Complainant for Rs. 50,000/- is fabricated one. The Complainant is an advocate having Odisha State Bar Council Enrolment No. 0-348/1996 and representing C.C. No. 17/2016 before this Forum and also representing the appeal F.A. No. 401/2017 before State Commission. For both the cases the Complainant charged Rs. 20,000/- each and amount has been paid. The Hon’ble State Commission when ordered Rs. 5.00 lakhs compensation the Complainant demanded 10% i.e. Rs. 50,000/-. The O.P. denied as fees was paid in advance. Thereafter the Complainant issued notice dated 05.10.2023.

The Complainant with malafide intention and to grab money filed this complaint against legal ethics and the Advocates Act. The Complainant has misused his position and harassed the present O.P. for vexatious claim the Complainant is liable to pay Rs. 1.00 lakhs compensation.

3. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant. Notice dated 05.10.2023 was issued by Prem Prakash Panigrahi against the O.P. claiming outstanding Advocate fees of Rs. 50,000/- relating to C.C. No. 17/2016 and F.A. No. 401/2017 of SCDRC, Cuttack. The Complainant has filed the tracking report letter delivered to O.P.

The O.P. has not filed any documents to prove his case.

4. It is the admission of both the parties that C.C. No. 17/2016 of this Forum and F.A. No. 401/2017 was dealt  by the Complainant on behalf of the client. The O.P. submitted that the Complainant has been paid Rs. 20,000/- each in both the cases in advance and there is no any outstanding against the O.P.

The Complainant in other hand by sending notice dated 05.10.2023 demanded Rs. 50,000/- and the O.P. denied to pay the amount. This is very basis of the complaint.

5. To bring a consumer complaint the agreement between the parties are very important. The Complainant not filed any documents to prove that the O.P. agreed to repair his old residential house. Simply sending a notice and demanding fees does not bring any agreement/contract between the parties. Payment of advocate fees or non-payment does not cover under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The parties are at liberty to prefer dispute before appropriate forum regarding collection of fees.

The second point of consideration is that the O.P. denied clearly about the repairing work. The Complainant filed some photographs of his residential house. The alleged work is about repairing of asbestos roof and patch on the plastered wall whereas bricks have been deposited in the yard. It proves the false story created by the Complainant. The Complainant designed a plan, first sent a demand notice and then created a false story taking the advantageous potion as an advocate, created a story taking the position of the O.P. as a contractor and then filed he complaint before this Commission. The Complainant has misused his position as an advocate, dragged the O.P. clinent to the Commission and by unfair means tried to recover his disputed advocate fees by lodging a consumer complaint.

In V.SunithaVs State of Telengana& others Crl Appeal No. 2068/2017 the hon’ble

          SC held that

          “The claim of an advocate based on a share in the subject matter is a professional misconduct and it can not be basis of a complaint.”

As an advocate the Complainant is well versed with the procedures of law and knowing the consequences of filing false affidavit taken law to his own hand. The O.P. also filed affidavit to counter the allegations. The Complainant failed to substantiate his case miserably.

6. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been passed for easy access of the consumers and to avoid any procedural complicacies. Taking the advantage of the simpliedlaw, the advantaged mass should not misuse the same. In the C.P. Act, 1986 provisions of Vexatious claim was there but in the recent legislation there is no any provision of vexatious claim and consequences thereof. The claim made by the O.P. is not acceptable as this commission has no jurisdiction to travel beyond the legislation.

Taking into consideration the circumstances of the Complaint, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief claimed for and accordingly ordered:

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed on contest against the O.P. The Complainant is cautioned not to file such types of complaint in future. No cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18^th day of June, 2024

Supply free copies to the parties.