Date of filing:18.01.2023

                                                   Date of Disposal:15.04.2024

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 15^th DAY OF APRIL 2024

PRESENT

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT

Mr K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs.M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 115/2023​

ORDER

Appellant is personally present.Learned counsel for appellant is also present. None appears for respondent.Heard and proceed to dictate the order.  

1. This is an appeal filed by OP in CC/44/2022 on the file of II Additional DCDRC, Bengaluru, aggrieved by the order dated 29.12.2022.

2. The brief facts of the case are: The Complainant is aged 80 years old US citizen presently residing at Bengaluru had availed legal services from appellant for the purpose of Arbitration work in respect of dispute amongst the partners in which complainant was one of the partner in AIPRO CITY/SOUTHEX.  The complainant has raised a Consumer Complaint on 29.01.2022 on the file of District Commission to direct OP/appellant to refund the advocate fee paid by him amounting to Rs.7,38,300/- and direct to refund advocate fee paid to complainant advocate for conducting case before Disciplinary Committee, Karnataka State Bar Council and to award damages of Rs.30,00,000/- towards causing financial loss in his business during Arbitration Proceedings amounting to Rs.07 Crore and causing mental torture, agony, hardship, physical stress and exhaustion, injustice and inconvenience and to award Rs.50,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.  On admission of this complaint, appellant/OP has contested the complaint, filed an IA No.3 U/o VII Rule 11 of CPC to dismiss the complaint as not maintainable and is barred by limitation on the ground that complaint is not only barred by time but hit by principles of res-judicata and sub-judice since Disciplinary Committee of the Karnataka State Bar Council has already decided the dispute between the complainant and OP/appellant.  However, the District Commission having heard learned counsels on record for the complaint case, proceed to pass impugned order holding – So far as res-judicata is concerned,   would be considered at the time of main arguments. Further appellant/OP without furnishing details cannot contend that complaint is barred by time and even this plea can be heard finally at the time of main arguments.  Accordingly, ordered to dismiss the IA No.3 filed U/s VII Rule 11 of CPC with a liberty to OP/appellant to raise all available defence at the time of main arguments.

3. Let us examine the relief sought in IA No.3 as found from Annexure-D wherein OP/appellant has requested to dismiss the complaint as not maintainable and barred by law as the matter was already dealt by Karnataka State Bar Council in the proceedings DCE 6/2017, is a prima facie to show that the District Commission has failed to examine the proceedings in DCE 6/2017 placed along with IA No.3.  The complaint came to be filed before the District Commission on 29.01.2022 under CPA, 2019 and it would b