Enforcement of illegal contracts under the Consumer Protection Act and the discretionary nature of costs awarded by the District Forum

Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President—This appeal is by the opposite party Arun Madan, Advocate against the order of District Forum, Amritsar, whereby the complaint filed against him was dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. In appeal, Shri Arun Madan claims costs of litigation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- primarily on the ground that the complaint was false and frivolous.

2. The allegations made in the complaint by Jagir Singh, complainant briefly were to the effect that he had paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to Shri Arun Madan tor passing illegal gratification to Sub-Judge for getting a favourable order. Since no such favourable order was passed, the amount was not refunded by the Advocate. Hence this complaint was filed for return of the aforesaid amount alongwith Rs. 7,000/- as fee charged. He also claims costs and damages. The District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant was not approaching the Forum with clean hands, who was indulging in unfair and illegal practices. There was no deficiency in rendering the service as stated above. As such the complaint was dismissed as stated above.

3. In the set-up circumstances as alleged, the complainant could not approach the District Forum for any relief. Obviously, it is not a case of a sale of goods and defect found therein to enable the complainant to claim compensation. Contract as alleged is obviously illegal and cannot be enforced under the law. No complaint for enforcement of illegal contract could be filed under the Consumer Protection Act. Obviously, no question of rendering deficiency in service arises in such a case. It is not necessary to comment on the conduct of the parties or as to what offence or misconduct was committed, if any, by the parties. The remedy lies somewhere else i.e., either before the Criminal Court or before the Bar Council. Since no decision on merits was required to be made, the parties were rightly left to bear their own costs while dismissing the complaint. The grant of costs was discretionary with District Forum and it does not call for any interference. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

Appeal dismissed in limine.