NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 606 OF 2002 (From the order dated 25.2.02 in MP No.451/01 in Appeal No.462/01 of the State Commission, Punjab) M/s. Amritsar Haldi Sales Corpn. Petitioner Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board Respondent & REVISION PETITION NO. 607 OF 2002 (From the order dated 25.2.02 in MP No.448/01 in Appeal No.458/01 of the State Commission, Punjab) M/s. Amritsar Haldi Sales Corpn. Petitioner Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, PRESIDENT HONBL MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER. MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER. MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER. Lawyer - deficiency in service - wrong advice by a lawyer - if sufficient cause to condone delay - held - no - right of client proceeding against lawyer for deficiency in service. For the Petitioner : Mr. Udip Singh, Avocate O R D E R
DATED THE 2nd May,
2002.
JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J.(PRESIDENT).
Petitioner/Complainant has come before us against the order of the
State Commission Dismissing his appeal which was barred by limitation of 47
days. State Commission did not find any
sufficient cause to condone the delay.
It is stated that it was the
wrong advice of the advocate that there was no delay in filing the appeal. If that is so, counsel may be held
guilty for deficiency in service. We cannot fall for the oft repeated argument
that client should not suffer for the fault of lawyer. Why should he suffer? He can proceed against the lawyer for professional negligence on account of
deficiency in service. We are a consumer
Forum where disputes are to be decided in set time schedule. As a matter of fact, under sub-section (3)
of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act no proceedings complying with the procedure laid down in sub-sections (1)
and (2) shall be called in question in
any court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have not been
complied with. It is not disputed that
procedures as contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 13 were not
complied with. We do not want a
Consumer forum to become another civil Court by accepting such specious arguments that there can be no fault
on the part of lawyer representing the client. We do not want to interfere with the order of the State
Commission holding that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the
delay. Revision Petition is dismissed.
J
(D.P. WADHWA)
PRESIDENT
J
(J.K. MEHRA)
MEMBER
.
(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)
MEMBER
.
(B.K. TAIMNI)
MEMBER