NANDLAL LOHARIYA versus JAGDISH CHAND PUROHIT AND ORS. on 8 November 2021

O R D E R

B

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the National Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NationalCCommission’) dated 25.11.2019 in Revision Petition No. 380/2019 andorder dated 07.01.2020 passed by the learned National Commission inReview Application No. 348/2019 in Revision Petition No. 380/2019, bywhich the learned National Commission has dismissed the said revisionpetition and has confirmed the orders passed by the Rajasthan StateConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (hereinafter referredDto as the ‘State Commission’) and the District Consumer DisputesRedressal Commission, Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as the‘District Forum’) dismissing the complaint of the petitioner, the originalcomplainant has preferred the present special leave petitions.

2. We have heard Shri Viraat Tripathi, learned Advocate appearingEon behalf of the petitioner.

2.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such there is ahuge delay of 593 days in preferring the special leave petition againstorder dated 25.11.2019. Still, we have considered the special leave petitionson merits also.F

3. That the petitioner herein filed three complaints being complaintNos. 101/2014, 102/2014 and 01/2015 before the District Forum throughhis three advocates against BSNL. All the three complaints came to bedismissed by the District Forum on merits. That after dismissal of thecomplaints, the petitioner herein filed a complaint against the threeGadvocates who appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the aforesaidthree complaints alleging deficiency in service on their part in contestinghis cases before the District Forum.

3.1 It was alleged that all the three advocates have not performedtheir duties properly. The said complaints were also filed with delay ofH365 to 630 days. The petitioner herein claimed for a compensation of Rs.15 lakhs from the advocates alleging deficiency in service in contestingthe three complaints which were dismissed. The said complaint filedagainst the three advocates came to be dismissed by the District Forum.The appeal preferred by the petitioner herein before the State Commissionalso came to be dismissed, which was the subject matter of the revisionpetition before the National Commission. By the impugned judgmentand order(s), the learned National Commission has dismissed the saidrevision petition, as also, the review application.

4. Having heard Shri Viraat Tripathi, learned Advocate appearingon behalf of the petitioner and having gone through the impugned judgmentand order passed by the learned National Commission and even theorder passed by the District Forum dated 30.06.2016 passed in originalcomplaint nos. 101/2014, 102/2014 and 01/2015, we are of the firm opinionthat the District Forum, the State Commission and the NationalCommission have rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the petitionerherein filed against the three advocates who appeared on behalf of thepetitioner in the aforesaid three complaints, which as such were dismissedon merits. There are no observations by the District Forum against theadvocates that there was any negligence on the part of the advocates inprosecuting and/or conducting the complaints. In the common order, ithas been specifically observed by the District Forum that the allegationsin the complaints are not proved and due to which all the three complaintsare liable to be dismissed. Once the complaints came to be dismissed onmerits and there was no negligence on the part of the advocates at all, itcannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of theadvocates who appeared on behalf of the complainant and lost on merits.

4.1 Once it is found and held that there was no deficiency inservice on the part of the advocates, the complaint filed by the petitioner– complainant against the three advocates was liable to be dismissedand is rightly dismissed by the District Forum and the same has beenrightly confirmed by the State Commission and thereafter by the NationalCommission. Only in a case where it is found that there was anydeficiency in service by the advocate, there may be some case. In eachand every case where a litigant has lost on merits and there is nonegligence on the part of the advocate/s, it cannot be said that there wasany deficiency in service by the advocate/s. If the submission advancedon behalf of the petitioner is accepted, in that case, in each and everycase where a litigant has lost on merits and his case is dismissed, he will AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aapproach the consumer fora and pray for compensation allegingdeficiency in service. Losing the case on merits after the advocate arguedthe matter cannot be said to be deficiency in service on the part of theadvocate. In every litigation, either of the party is bound to lose and insuch a situation either of the party who will lose in the litigation mayapproach the consumer fora for compensation alleging deficiency inBservice, which is not permissible at all.

5. Under the circumstances, the District Forum, the StateCommission and the National Commission have rightly dismissed thecomplaint filed by the petitioner herein against the three advocates whoappeared on behalf of the petitioner in the aforesaid three complaintsCwhich came to be dismissed on merits. There is no substance in thepresent special leave petitions. We would have dismissed the specialleave petitions with exemplary costs, however, as the present proceedingsarise out of the order passed by the consumer forum, we refrain fromimposing any exemplary costs while dismissing the present special leaveDpetitions.