ORDER

1.       The revision petitioner is practicing advocate against whom a complaint was filed by the respondent/ complainant alleging deficiency and unfair trade practice  to the effect that the petitioner  had been paid a sum of Rs.77,125/- for depositing court fee in respect of a suit in which he was engaged by the complainant that was filed arising out of a civil matter. The complainant alleges that he paid this amount after encashing two of his fixed deposits and when subsequently, the complainant received a certified copy of the plaint, he was surprised to find that only a sum of Rs.25/- had been paid as a court fee. The petitioner, according to the complainant, had provided a fake and forged challan to the complainant for payment of Rs.77,125/-.

2.       Accordingly, complainant CC/24/2015 was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karwar, Karnataka. The District Commission came to a well-considered conclusion holding that the petitioner had collected Rs.97,125/- in total out of which Rs.77,125/- had to be deposited towards the court fee  in O.S. No. 104 of 2013. He however had deposited only Rs.25/- and had misrepresented to the complainant and therefore there was deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice.

3.       The District Commission further observed that these facts be brought to the notice of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karwar and the complaint was allowed with a direction to pay Rs.87,100/- together with 8% interest from the date of complaint till the date of payment. A sum of Rs.3,000/- was also awarded as costs.

4.       The petitioner filed an appeal before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore and the appeal has been dismissed confirming the order of the District Commission in Appeal No. 1032 of 2016 on 03.02.2021.

5.       Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in this revision with a reported delay of 315 days in the filing of the revision. IA/3076/2022 has been filed for condoning the delay.

6.       Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Anubha Agrawal, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent/ complainant, keeping in view the merits of the matter and the nature of the complaint as well as the explanation afforded for delay, including the covid period that had intervened, the delay is condoned and IA/3076/2022 is allowed.

7.       On the merits of the matter learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the present revision petition deserves to be allowed keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bar of Indian Lawyers through its President Jasbir Singh Malik Vs. D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 928.  Ms. Agrawal, learned amicus curiae urged that the aforesaid legal position is now settled but the fact remains that the petitioner had indulged in a totally unprofessional conduct which was beyond the services that had been agreed to be provided, namely, the filing of a civil suit with a payment of the requisite court fee. She submits that the findings of fact are categorical by the District Commission as well as affirmed by the State Commission. Hence there is no cause to interfere with the aforesaid findings and even otherwise there is no material placed before this Commission to defer with such findings of fact recorded by the fora below.

8.       She therefore submits that no indulgence should be granted in such cases where an old couple, who were seeking to knock the doors of justice through the help of its ordained priest, namely a lawyer, they experienced an unprecedented set back and felt cheated.

9.       A reference to the judgment in the case of D. K. Gandhi (Supra) needs to be made. The issue raised before the Supreme Court was as to whether the complaint alleging deficiency in service against an advocate practicing legal profession would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the consumer forum, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1