Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan, President &
Mr. Ratan Prakash, Member
RAMESH CHAND VERMA—Petitioner
versus
CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT FORUM, DHOLPUR & ORS.––Respondents
Revision Petition No. 38 of 2003—Decided on 7.11.2003
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Petitioner: In person.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Advocate.
The court clarified that the payment of statutory fees to an authority does not establish a consumer-provider relationship under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Advocates Act - The court dismissed the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act on the grounds that there was no relationship of consumer and provider of services between the petitioner and the Secretary of the Bar Council.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act against an advocate with the Bar Council, alleging non-action and lack of information regarding his complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the complaint, stating that no relationship of consumer and provider of service existed between the petitioner and the Secretary of the Bar Council.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had a consumer-provider relationship with the Secretary of the Bar Council.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the payment of statutory fees to an authority does not constitute consideration as used in the Consumer Protection Act.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, with liberty for the petitioner to seek remedy before an appropriate forum.
Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan, President—Heard.
The grievance of the petitioner in his complaint before the Forum was that although he had filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act against one Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate, with the Bar Council for Rajasthan through its Secretary Shri O.P. Gupta, non-petitioner, and had also complied with the instructions as given by the Bar Council to him, but the Bar Council did not take any action in the matter and also did not inform of the treatment given by them to his complaint. The Forum has rejected the complaint of the petitioner on the ground that no relationship of consumer and provider of service was created between the petitioner on the one hand and the Secretary of the Bar Council Shri O.P. Gupta on the other hand.
2. It is no doubt true that the petitioner had supported his complaint with affidavit and other documents as required by the Bar Council and also had submitted a demand draft for Rs. 100/- for processing the complaint against Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate but such fees was charged by the Bar Council as per rules in force. Where an authority acting under the provision of statute, charges certain fees for discharging the duties, such payment of the statutory fees does not partake of character of consideration as used in the language of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986. The Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint of the petitioner on the ground that there existed no relationship of consumer and provider of services between the petitioner and Shri O.P. Gupta who happened to be the Secretary of the Bar Council at the relevant time.
3. In the result, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek his remedy before appropriate Forum.
Revision Petition dismissed.
