SHAKUNTALA BAJPAI vs R.K. SAINI

THIS revision is directed against the order dated 24.1.2005 of State Commission, Delhi partly allowing appeal against the order dated 23.8.2001 of a District Forum and setting aside the award of compensation and cost of Rs. 2,000 in favour of the petitioner.

FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in narrow compass. Petitioner/complainant through a property broker engaged the respondent/opposite party, an advocate for filing a case against the D.D.A. Respondent is alleged to have assured the petitioner that he would obtain stay as he has done for others. Amount of Rs. 5,000 was agreed to be paid towards professional charges and Rs. 1,000 towards expenses and out of this amount a sum of Rs. 1,000 was paid in cash and Rs. 2,500 through a cheque. Petitioner alleged that she apprehended that case was not filed by the respondent as no copy of the order was given to her by him. On failure to return the original documents by the respondent, the petitioner alleging deficiency in service filed complaint which was contested by filing written version by the respondent. Respondent did not dispute of his having been engaged as Counsel and being paid Rs. 2,500 by a cheque by the petitioner, It was, however, alleged that writ petition was filed within three days of the receipt of the amount and petitioner had sworn affidavit and signed Vakalatnama. Petition was rejected by the Single Judge on 25.3.1996. On instructions, LPA was filed which was withdrawn as the Bench was not inclined to issue notice. It was stated that respondent is willing to return the original documents to the petitioner provided she withdraws the complaints made to various authorities against him and tenders apology. We heard Mr. O.P. Bajpai, husband of the petitioner and Ms. Nawerta for the respondent.

As may be seen from the order of District Forum the petitioner''s apprehension about the writ petition not having been filed by the respondent was held to be not genuine taking note of the copies of writ petition (Exhibit RW-1/3) and LPA (Exhibit RW-1/5) filed by the respondent. Said order notices the submission advanced by the respondent that he had lien over the documents of the petitioner and is willing and ready to return them without payment of balance fee provided she withdraws the allegations made against him and she tenders apology. The District Forum held that the respondent did not have any lien over the original documents and non-return thereof amounted to deficiency in service on his part for which amount of Rs. 2,000 was awarded as compensation and cost to the petitioner. As is manifest from the order of State Commission it also did not agree with the respondent that he had a lien over the documents received during the professional work from the petitioner. However, considering the facts that writ petition and LPA were filed and respondent was paid only part of the fee, the portion of the order of District Forum in regard to award of Rs. 2,000 was set aside. In our view, having concurred with the District Forum that respondent did not have a lien over the original documents the State Commission acted erroneously in setting aside the award of Rs. 2,000 as compensation and cost on the said ground. Non-return of original documents amounted to deficiency in service on the part of respondent which did not have any nexus to the withdrawing of complaints and allegations and tendering of apology by the petitioner. Since no appeal was filed against the District Forum''s order by the petitioner she cannot claim increase in the amount of compensation as claimed in revision petition. Part of the order of State Commission setting aside the award of Rs. 2,000, therefore, deserves to be set aside being legally erroneous and the order of District Forum restored.

ACCORDINGLY, while allowing revision the said part of order of State Commission is set aside and the order of District Forum is restored. No order as to costs. Revision Petition allowed.