SHASHI BALA vs VIJAY JINDAL

CHALLENGE in this revision is to the order dated 15.5.2006 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Union Territory, Chandigarh dismissing appeal against the order dated 7.9.2005 of a District Forum whereby complaint was dismissed.

PETITIONER/complainant was married to one Hari Chand on 20.7.81. After marriage it transpired that Hari Chand was already married having five children. Consequently petitioner filed complaint under Sections 494, 406 and 420, IPC against Hari Chand before Judicial Magistrate, Barnala. Hari Chand was, however, discharged on 24.12.1994. Against that order, petitioner filed revision petition which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala. Thereafter, petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 14334/90 under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by engaging the respondent/opposite party as Counsel. It was alleged that miscellaneous petition came up for hearing before the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 26.3.2003 and the respondent wrongly submitted to the Court that petitioner would be satisfied if she is paid appropriate compensation. Miscellaneous petition was dismissed on 30.4.2003 as compromised after Hari Chand gave a cheque of Rs. 20,000 which was later on sent to the petitioner. It was stated that respondent had not informed the petitioner about the proceedings in the High Court and had compromised the matter against her instructions. Alleging deficiency in service she filed complaint seeking certain reliefs against the respondent which was contested by him. It was alleged that keeping in view the nature of case and petitioner having re-married, the High Court on 26.3.2003 suggested awarding compensation of Rs. 20,000 which was readily agreed by Hari Chand. Proposal of settlement suggested by the High Court as also date of 30.4.2004 was conveyed on telephone but no one turned up for the petitioner on 30.4.2003. Allegation in regard to deficiency in service was denied. 3. In this Commission, petitioner has filed application seeking permission to place on record the affidavit of her husband and some other documents in support of the revision petition.

We have heard Ms. Suresh Kumari, Advocate on this application as well as on admission of revision.

AS may be seen from the order of State Commission the respondent had conveyed the proposal of settlement as also date of 30.4.2003 on phone sometimes in the last weeek of March, 2003 to Ravinder Bansal, brother of Rajinder Bansal whom the petitioner has been re-married. In support of the averment that Ravinder Bansal had conveyed the message to Rajinder Bansal with request to convey it to the petitioner, affidavit of Ravinder Bansal was filed and Rajinder Bansal had not filed any affidavit controverting the affidavit of Ravinder Bansal. State Commission''s order further notices that SLP filed against the order dated 30.4.2003 by the petitioner was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 6.2.2004. Even complaint made to Bar Council by the petitioner against the respondent was dismissed observing that there was no substance in it. Copy of SLP has not been filed by the petitioner. Presumably, stand taken therein by the petitioner may be that she had not given any instructions to the respondent to compromise the matter and date of 30.4.2003 was not intimated to her. Petitioner cannot be permitted to file the affidavit and other documents to fill up the lacuna at revisional stage. Considering the uncontroverted affidavit of Ravinder Bansal, order dated 6.2.2004 and stand taken by respondent, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of C.P. Act, 1986. Accordingly, application and revision petition are dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.