H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHIMLA First Appeal No. : 178/2023 Date of Presentation :07.08.2023 Order Reserved on :17.06.2024 Date of Order :24.06.2024 _____

Smt.Rajni Devi Wife of Sh. Deshraj R/o Village Lower Chauntra, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

…… Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1. Sh.Hoshiar Singh Rangra, Advocate, High Court of H.P. at Shimla, H.P. 171001.

2. Sh.Sant Ram Badhan, Advocate, District Courts Complex Mandi, H .P. 175001.

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

Coram Hon’ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President Hon’ble Mr.R.K. Verma, Member. Whether approved for reporting?

For the Appellant: SPA Mr. Des Raj in person.

For the Respondent No.1: Mr.Pradeep Kumar Gupta, Advocate.

For the Respondent No.2: None.

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?

Per R.K.Verma, Member.

O R D E R

Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated

21.07.2023 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Consumer Complaint No.113/2021 titled Smt. Rajni Devi versus Sh. Hoshiar Singh Rangra & Anr.

Brief facts of Case

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had engaged the opposite party No.1 Sh. Hoshiar Singh Rangra as her counsel before the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. to pursue RSA (Regular Second Appeal) No.130 of 2015. The complainant had paid 25,000/- to the opposite party ₹

No.1/Advocate as settled fee through opposite party No.2 Mr.Sant Ram Badhan, Advocate, who is practicing as a lawyer at District Court, Mandi. The complainant used to pay

2,000/- per month to the opposite party No.1/Advocate ₹

since 2015. On 06.04.2015, the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. had stayed the execution of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No.8 of 2014 dated 25.11.2014. Despite the aforesaid stay order, the defendants/respondents in the aforesaid case willfully disobeyed the order of status quo passed by the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. These facts were brought to the notice of the opposite party No.1/Advocate by the complainant and to file contempt petition, but the opposite party/Advocate did not file any contempt petition against the contemnor and kept on prolonging the matter on one or the other pretext. The defendants/respondents in the aforesaid Civil Appeal changed the revenue entries. As a result, the complainant suffered irreparable loss. Thereafter, the complainant changed her counsel and requested the Advocate to return her case file. The opposite party No.1/Advocate refused to recognize the complainant and stated that he was having no concern with the complainant. There was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The opposite party No.1/Advocate contested the complaint by filing a reply and admitted the fact that the complainant had entrusted to him the file of RSA No.130 of 2015 pending before the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. The execution of Power of Attorney by the opposite party No.1/Advocate in the aforesaid RSA No.130/2015 was a contract of personal service, as a result, it would not fall within the definition of service for the purpose of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant did not provide any evidence to him regarding the alleged contempt of Court by the defendants in the Civil Appeal. So, he was not able to file any contempt petition. A prayer was made to dismiss the complaint.

4. The opposite party No.2 was served, but none had appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.2. Therefore, opposite party No.2 was proceeded against ex-

parte.

5. The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the opposite party No.1/Advocate, wherein she denied the objections taken by the opposite party No.1 and further reasserted the averments already made in the complaint.

6. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

7. After hearing learned counsel of the parties, learned District Commission dismissed the complaint