B S Manikatti vs S S Hurakadli , K.P. Kotigoudar, Advocate The President Of The Gadag, District Advocates Bar Association, Gadag

THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 08.02.2012 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 4149/2011 - Sri B.S. Manikatti Vs. S.S. Hurakadli & Anr. by which appeal was dismissed at the admission stage and order of District Forum was upheld.

HEARD the petitioner in person and perused record.

BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant was member of Gadag District Bar Association. His membership was removed from the Bar Association. He filed a complaint against the office bearers of Bar Association with a prayer to call for the records of register book of accounts, names of Advocates register book on account of resolution made and claimed Rs.5,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service by respondents. Respondents submitted before the District Forum that Gadag District Bar Association was registered on 19.6.2009 under Karnataka Society Registration Act, 1960 and as per bye-law No.8, name of the member in default to pay subscription fee was to be struck down and as the complainant was defaulter, his name was removed from the list of members. District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that complainant was not a consumer and bye-laws of the Association empowered to remove the name of the member if he failed to pay prescribed fee and further observed that complaint was time barred. The State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal at admission stage.

LEARNED Petitioner who himself is an Advocate could not show any infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order. Bar Association was registered on 19.6.2009 under Karnataka Society Registration Act, 1960 and petitioner was not a member to the Bar Association. The petitioner has not impleaded Gadag District Bar Association, Gadag as opposite party in the complaint and he filed complaint only against two office bearers who were President and Secretary of the Bar Association at the time of filing complaint and who are no more office bearers. Without impleading Bar Association as a party, this complaint was not maintainable. Learned District Forum and the learned State Commission have rightly observed that in default of payment of subscription, petitioner''s name has rightly been removed. Merely by producing a receipt of Rs.90/- dated 9.6.2005 towards arrears of subscription, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as after 9.6.2005, the petitioner has not paid any subscription fee to the Bar Association as required under Rules. The order passed by the learned State Commission is just and proper which does not call for interference and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to cost. Sd/- . .................................. ( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/- ................................... ( SURESH CHANDRA ) MEMBER