Adhikarla. Satya Surya Kanaka Durgaprasad vs Ch. Rambabu

The petitioner has sent a letter to consider the revision for admission. Today, the revision has been listed for admission.

Above revision has been filed against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Visakhapatnam dated 04.03.2022 dismissing the complaint and the order of Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijayawada dated 16.11.2022 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.

The petitioner filed CC/181/2014 for directing the opposite party (i) to pay Rs.1232279/-, (ii) to pay Rs.4 lacs as compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment and (iii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The complainant stated that the complainant was employed with M/s Rohini Industrial Electricals Pvt. Ltd. on the post of Senior Engineer, Electrical (Executive) on 28.07.2008.  However, his services have been terminated by the letter dated 06.04.2009 without giving any advance one month notice or any advance one month salary.  The termination of the complainant was illegal.  Although the complainant protested the termination with the employer and insisted to recall the termination letter but the employer instead of recalling the termination letter, has issued a cheque of Rs.20397/- which was not accepted by the complainant and returned it to the employer.  The complainant instructed Shri Ch. Rambabu, Advocate to file a suit against the employer challenging his wrongful termination from the service and handed over all the relevant papers as well as fee of Rs.15000/-.  Later on, the opposite party informed that suit has been filed in the Court of Sr. Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam on 19.08.2009 which was registered as GR No.10899.  There has been some defect in the suit.  Therefore, the office of Sr. Civil Judge has returned the plaint and after removing the defect, the plaint was again presented in the Court of Sr. Civil Judge, in the month of April 2010.  The plaint was again found defective and no cognizance of it was taken.  As and when the complainant enquired from the opposite party, he had given some assurance to wait till July 2010.  When notice was not issued in the plaint, then the complainant gave a notice to the opposite party on 02.07.2010 but the opposite party did not respond to the notice.  Then a fresh notice was again given on 18.07.2010 and final notice was given on 13.08.2010.  Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party before the Andhra Pradesh State Bar Council at Hyderabad and also before the Bar Council of India under the provisions of Advocates Act, 1961.  Thereafter, this complaint was filed on 29.05.2013.  The opposite party filed written reply in which it has been stated that on the instructions of the complainant, the plaint was presented before the Sr. Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.  On 19.08.2009, the office has allotted GR No.10899.  Later on, the office informed that there was a defect in the suit and returned the plaint for removal of the defect.  After removing the defect, the plaint was again presented in the Court of Sr. Civil Judge.  It appears that some fresh defects were pointed out and someone else has taken back the plaint from the office of Civil Judge.  The opposite party contacted the staff of Civil Judge who searched the record of the plaint and ultimately pointed out that a record has been received by someone else and they advised to file an application for reconstruction of the record.  On which the opposite party filed an application for reconstruction of the record which was also permitted by the Civil Judge.  The opposite party has called the complainant to reconstruct the record but the complainant, instead of cooperating with the opposite party in reconstruction of the record, started filing complaint against the complainant before the State Bar Council as well as Bar Council of India.  There was no negligence committed by the opposite party.  Rather, the Court of Civil Judge has committed negligence and returned the record to some unknown person due to which the original plaint as filed, has lost.

Both the parties have filed their affidavit of evidence.  District Consumer Forum, by its judgment dated 04.03.2022, found that the plaint was duly presented by the opposite party before the Sr. Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam and the plaint was also allotted a number as GR No.10899.  After removing the defect, the plaint was again presented by the opposite party in the Court of Civil Judge but it appears that the plaint was lost from the office of Civil Judge.  The record of the Civil Judge shows that the plaint was received by someone else and not by the opposite party.  The opposite party tried to reconstruct the record of the suit but the complainant did not cooperate in reconstruction of the record.  There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  On this finding, the complaint was dismissed.

The petitioner filed FA/7/2022 from the aforesaid order.  The appeal was heard by the State Commission who, by its order dated 16.11.2022, again re-examined the record and found that the plaint as presented by the opposite party before the Civil Judge, was actually returned for removal of defect and after removal of the defect, it was again presented by the opposite party before the Civil Judge which is verified from the record.  However, the plaint was lost from the office of the Civil Judge for which the office has given explanation that someone has received the plaint.  All the papers which are necessary for filing the suit, are available with the complainant.  The complainant, instead of co-operating the opposite party in reconstruction of the plaint, filed a complaint against the opposite party in Bar Council.  There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  On this finding, the appeal has been dismissed.  Hence, this revision has been filed.

In the revision again, same grounds have been raised that due to negligence of the opposite party, his plaint was lost from the Court of the Civil Judge.

We have examined the record and found that there is concurrent finding that the opposite party filed the suit/plaint before the Sr. Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam on which GR No.10899/2009 was allotted.  The opposite party has produced the record that there has been defect in the suit for which the office has returned the plaint and after removal of the defect, the opposite party again presented the plaint before the Civil Judge but later on, the plaint along with its entire documents, was lost from the office of the Civil Judge.  Somebody had received it but the initial as made in the register of the Civil Judge regarding receiving the plaint was not of the opposite party.  The opposite party tried at his level to reconstruct the plaint but the complainant has not cooperated in reconstruction of the record.  Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  The plaint was lost from the custody of the Court.  This concurrent finding of facts does not suffer from any illegality.  The Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Loudres Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. (2016) 8 SCC 286, held that this Commission cannot interfere with the concurrent finding of facts.

ORDER

In the result, Revision Petition is dismissed.