CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VII, SHEIKH SARAI, NEW DELHI-110017

Complaint No. DF. VII/774/2009

In the matter of :
Sh. Manish Marwah & Mukesh Marwah
R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110 022.  ….Complainant
Versus
1. M/s The Mobilestore Limited, New Delhi. ….Opposite Party-I
2. Citi Bank, NA, Jeevan Bharti Building, New Delhi-110001.
Also: Customer Care Centre at Delhi Of Citi Bank. ….Opposite Party-II
3. HSBC Bank, Sector-18 Noida. UP.  ….Opposite Party-III

O R D E R

(HARSHALI KAUR, MEMBER)
Complainant No. 1 has been issued Credit Card No. 4385-8715-6799-0016 (herein after referred to as Primary Card) and Complainant No. 2, held add – on Card No. 4385-8715-6799-0107 (herein after referred to add – on card) of the O.P-II.
The Complainant’s were admittedly using a Primary and an add – on card. It is alleged by the Complainant NO. 2 that on 12.6.09, at around 8 P.M. the add – on card alongwith the Complainant’s wallet, papers, license, debit and Credit Cards went missing. At 9.22 PM. he got an intimation that on his add – on card three transactions were held at O.P-I mobile store which were for Rs. 12,419/-, Rs. 9229/-, and Rs. 10,499/-. On 13.6.09 Complainant No. 2 informed O.P-II to block the add – on card, disputing the said transactions. NCR No. 1042/2009 was also registered on 14.6.09.
The Complainant’s allege that the Credit Card was misused by some unknown person at the showroom of O.P-I. The Complainant registered complaints of the missing Credit Cards on the customer care of O.P-II who are arrayed as O.P-III. They got the matter investigated through Sharma Investigation. The Complainant’s alleged that when O.P-I produced the transaction slips it was clearly visible that the signatures on all 4 merchant Credit Card slips had shown different initials which were issued by O.P-I and differed with signatures of the card holders on the back of the Credit Card, thereby showing that O.P-I was negligent and willfully allowed the impostors to misuse cards belonging to the Complainant’s. The Complainant’s also allege that the copy of ID proof submitted by the said unlawful purchasers to O.P-I which O.P-I has produced, clearly shows that the signature of the said ID proof does not match the signatures on the merchant Credit Card slips showing negligence on the part of O.P-I. Also the unlawful person who purchased 4 mobiles in one go, did not alarm the O.P-I enough to verify the credentials of the person, which is their moral legal duty which according to the Complainant goes to show that O.P-I was mindful of the transaction being unlawful. So far as O.P-II and O.P-III, are concerned, the Complainant alleges that the O.P.’s have unlawfully debited the accounts of the Complainant’s with heavy charges and interests as the transactions were not made by the Complainant’s.
The Complainant’s getting no respite for their grievances sent a legal notice demanding recovery of losses and damages for problems suffered by them to the O.P.’s on 28.8.09. Getting no reply to the notice from the O.P.’s the Complainant’s filed the present complaint U/s 12, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 5.10.2009 alleging deficiency-in-service and unfair-trade-practice causing monetary loss, physical and mental harassment to the Complainant’s and prayed for directions to the O.P.’s to write off and rectify the accounts of the Complainant No. 1 Manish Marwahs debit balance regarding the unlawful transaction, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from each O.P. towards compensation for physical and mental agony and Rs. 50,000/- as punitive damages from each O.P. and any other order deemed fit by the Forum.
The complaint was dismissed for default on 20.10.09 due to non-appearance of the Complainant’s by this Forum but restored later on their application vide order dated 11.11.09 to its original number notice was issued to O.P-I, O.P-II and O.P-III who filed their respective replies. Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit were filed by the Complainant and then the O.P.’s filed their respective evidence. Written Argument were also filed by the Complainant and O.P-II, O.P-III. O.P-I however did not file Written Argument.
We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and O.P-II and O.P-III also presented their case orally before this Forum. O.P-I did not appear despite issuing notice intimating date of Final Argument.
O.P-I in their evidence filed by way of affidavit of Sh. Prashant Kumar Sigh, Store Manager, stated that the Complainant’s have filed a complaint which is baseless and false and that the transaction done with the Credit Card on 12.6.09 was valid and authorised by the respective banks i.e., O.P-II and O.P-III and O.P-I merely followed the due procedures set down by the respective banks and it was the primary duty of the Complainant’s themselves to block the cards after realising that their wallet had been missing but O.P-II and O.P-III were unable to block the card in time which shows that it could be due to negligence of O.P-II and O.P-III and that O.P-I is not liable in any way. He further stated that the signature on the Credit Card and slips of shopping matched and valid copy of driving licence of the purchaser had also been taken at time of sale as per instructions and procedure prescribed by O.P-II and O.P-III and since there were no instruction from O.P-II or O.P-III to verify the document and addresses of any purchasers at time of shopping with the Credit Card nor were there any rules for the same, the transaction was completed by the O.P-I after due verification. Further, a person who has a valid Credit Card can do as much shopping and Complainant’s averments contrary to the same have no bearing on the case and therefore the complaint is vexatious and false and is liable to be dismissed.
In the affidavit filed by Sh. Jagdish Salwan, for O.P-II, it is stated that the Complainant’s have failed to prove deficiency-in-service on the part of O.P-II and no cause of action has arisen between the Complainant’s and O.P-II. As per policy followed by O.P-II bank in cases of loss or damage of Credit Card, the card account is blocked on receipt of information from the card member and the bank assumes liability thereon. Since the transactions mentioned in the complaint were prior to any receipt of information of loss / theft of the Credit Card in question by O.P-II no liability can be fastened on O.P-II. The Complainant’s failed to inform O.P-II immediately after the card was lost / stolen and only got the card blocked after they received the confirmation call from the personnel of Fraud Detection Team of O.P-II with always calls to confirm transactions, when there are continuous transactions from a card account of any member to prevent cases of fraud and when there is a valid transaction from the Credit Card O.P-II is obliged to pay the acquiring bank on receipt of demand of payment from the acquiring bank for said transactions.
Sh. Piyush Tiwari, Principal officer of the O.P-III bank filed evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of O.P-III stating that admittedly the Complainant was issued a Credit Card by O.P-III alongwith an add – on card and he agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the Credit Card Service Guide which was sent to the Complainant and which states that in case of a lost Credit Card the card holder would immediately report the occurrence on the emergency assistance Help Line in writing or calling in the Customer Care Service Centre and that the card holder would not be liable for any transactions made on Credit Card only after reporting the loss / theft / misuse to the bank. In the present Complaint however the said card was allegedly stolen on 12.6.09 at 8.00 P.M. but O.P-III was intimated about the loss of address on card on 12.6.09 at 23.33.59 hrs. as per Ex O.P-III/C wrongly mentioned in the affidavit as 21.03.59 hrs. The disputed transactions were made prior to the time of intimation of loss and hence O.P-III is not liable for said transaction. The Complainant neither sent any written confirmation non an FIR, mandatory requirements as per the Credit Card holders agreement. O.P-III have stated that the present complaint does not constitute, any deficiency-in-service or unfair-trade-practice as contemplated U/S 2 (i) (f) (g) and (r) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against O.P-III and deserved to be dismissed on grounds of being beyond the scope of the Act.
We have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions of the parties and carefully perused the document placed on record.
On merit, we find sufficient force in the complaint filed on 15.10.09 wherein the Complainant No. 2 lost his wallet and thereby lost Credit Cards, debit cards, licence and pan card as is evident from the FIR that was registered on 14.6.09 at 3.00 P.M. at the police station R.K.Puram, New Delhi. The Complainant lost his wallet by his own admission on 12.6.09 at 8.00 P.M. The Complainant No. 1, the primary card holder on 15.6.09 filed a customer dispute Form for the disputed transaction of Rs. 23,209/- made by the lost Credit Card issued by O.P-III. Simultaneously, 3 other disputed transactions took place with another of the stolen Credit Cards issued by O.P-II amounting to Rs. 12,419/- Rs. 10,499/- and Rs. 9229/-. The Complainant has testified that O.P-I was deliberately negligent and even though both the Complainant’s have not made the purchase of the mobile phones from O.P-I, O.P-I without verifying the ID of the person purchasing the mobile phones, allowed the transaction which O.P-II and O.P-III banks also approved despite the calls made by the Complainant to inform them regarding the stolen wallet carrying the add – on card. So far as the liability of O.P-I is concerned, there is no doubt that they did not act as expected of a prudent man. O.P-I allowed purchase of 3 mobile phones to an individual on the Credit Card in question without due care and caution. The initials on the merchant slips purported to by Mukesh Sharma – the Complainant No. 2 do not match when viewed by one with naked eye, O.P-I have not even filed any proof to substantiate that they verified the identity of the person making purchases of 4 mobile phones in one go at 20:40:22; 20:41:49; 20:43:08, 20:44:45; i.e., within less than 5 minutes on 12.6.09 and succeeds in 3 transactions. It could be possible either due to collusion between the merchant and the buyer or due to negligence on the part of the merchant i.e., O.P-I who was motivated to sell his merchandise without caring to know and verify the whereabouts of the customer.
In the instant case we find that O.P-I has not acted diligently and unwittingly become a privy to the fraud being played by the person who purchased on the Credit Card belonging to Complainant No. 2. Hence, O.P-I can be held guilty of deficiency-in-service as defined by Clause (g) read with Clause (o) of Sub Clause (i) of Section 2 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Case as against O.P-II and O.P-III stands on different footing. According to the Complainant’s own case Complainant No. 2 lost his wallet on 12.6.09 at 8.00 P.M. and O.P-III are informed at 21:03:59 i.e. 9.04 P.M. one hour after the loss of the wallet. The purchases of Mobiles took place between 8.40 to 8.45 P.M. as evident from the merchant slips filed on record. Thus, the loss of the Credit Card in question is reported to O.P-III only after the disputed transaction had taken place. As per Annexure A filed by O.P-III every Credit Card is identified with Unique ID No. and when the bank is informed of the loss of a Credit Card they block further transactions on the said card, which O.P-III claim to have done in this case, to prevent any further transactions on the Credit Card in question. It is pleaded by O.P-III that such a card cannot be re-opened, a fresh card is issued provided the Credit Card holder requests for the same, subject to Credit Card holder to pay the entire standing liability including the one made prior to the intimation of loss of the card. It is further contented by O.P-III that the Complainant’s failed to pay outstanding amount of Rs. 41,049.10 P as due on 14.4.10 as per the statement of account Ex O.P W 3/B, and thus has become a non-performing Asset. Relying upon Clause 27 of the Card Member Agreement O.P-II have denied their liability for any deficiency-in-service or Unfair-Trade-Practice and we fully feel convinced, in the facts and circumstances of the case, O.P-II and O.P-III have promptly acted on the complaint of the Complainant’s and did whatever was required of them in preventing further misuse of the lost Credit Card of the Complainant’s. However, we find charging of interest on the amount of “disputed transactions” Unfair on their part especially when it is admitted that Credit Card in question was used by an unauthorised person and the amount in dispute is the liability of O.P-I as per their own claim that due to the negligence of O.P-I the Complainant incurred the alleged loss of Rs. 23,209/- prior to intimation to O.P-III bank about the loss of said Credit Card as one of the disputed transactions. The sole grievance against them as alleged by the Complainant is that O.P-II and O.P-III have been charging heavy interest on the disputed amount that they be directed to write off.
In this regard we are of the considered view that O.P-II and O.P-III though cannot be held liable for any deficiency-in-service, yet the Complainant’s are entitled to pay the outstanding as are receivable from O.P-I who in all fairness are liable to make good, the loss suffered by the Complainant’s due to their negligence.
Accordingly, allowing the complaint we direct O.P-I to pay a sum of Rs. 32,147/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand One Hundred Forty Seven Only) to the Complainant’s within thirty days of the receipt of copy of this order and the Complainant’s shall then pay to O.P-II and O.P-III the said amount against outstanding dues, where after O.P-II and O.P-III shall write off the amount without claiming any interest thereon and if requested by the Complainant’s shall restore the Credit Cards blocked on account of the loss of add – on card.
O.P-I shall also pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment including cost of litigation.
Order be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order.

• Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
• File, thereafter, be consigned to Record Room.

Order Pronounced on 7th February, 2014.
(Smt. HARSHALI KAUR)       (Shri S.K.SARVARIA)
               MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

The consumer court here has directed the Regional Institute of Co-operative Management, Sector 32, to shell out over Rs. 38 lakh to its seven former students who were wrongly told that the institute’s diploma was equivalent to an MBA.
As per orders of the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the student would get refund of Rs. 4.5 lakh each, plus Rs. 1 lakh each as compensation.
The students led, by Anamika Singh of SAS Nagar, who had undergone the Post-Graduate Diploma in Management (Agri-Business) in the 2010-12 session from the institute had filed a complaint before the district forum alleging that the RICM had wrongly represented that its diploma was equivalent to Master of Business Administration and recognised by the Association of Indian Universities for that. The students sought refund of the fees and compensation for loss of opportunity and time.
Deepak Aggarwal, counsel for the students, contended that they could not apply for further studies due to the wrong information.
The district forum, however, agreed with the contention of Pankaj Chandgothia, counsel for the institute, that the diploma was duly recognised by the AICTE, which was the only mandatory recognition required under law. Therefore, the diploma was valid but the additional benefit of MBA equivalence was not available. The district forum declined the prayer for refund but awarded `1 lakh each as compensation for the wrong claim of MBA equivalence.
The students filed an appeal before the state commission, which modified the order and has directed the institute to refund the entire fees besides paying the compensation.
source: http://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/chandigarh/institute-gets-rs-38-lakh-stick-for-selling-diploma-as-mba/article1-1134751.aspx

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (NORTH)
ROOM NO.2; OLD CIVIL SUPPLY BUILDING; TIS HAZARI: DELHI

CASE NO. 39/2011

Mr. Abhinav Prakash,
R/o: B-5/13, Rana Pratab Bagh,
Delhi-110 007 ….Complainant

VERSUS

1. M/s Just Dial Pvt. Ltd.,
(Through its Managing Director),
Corporate Office at Palmcourt Building–M,
5th Floor, Beside Goregaon Sports Club,
Link Road, Malad (West),
Mumbai-400 064.

Also at:
A-39/40, Sector 16,
Behind McDonald,
NOIDA-201301.

2. State Bank of India,
(Through its Branch Manager),
Tis Hazari Branch,
Delhi-110 054 …Opposite Parties

O R D E R

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that complainant is a practicing advocate having Enrollment No.D/2259/2005 and having his office at Chamber No.735A, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. It is alleged in the complaint that OP No.1 through its branch office at Noida has contacted the complainant through its employees namely Ms.Jyoti Chauhan and Sh. Rahul Kaushik and lured the complainant for “enhancement of his work by forwarding prospective clients to him from the entire country”.

Complainant agreed to take annual package of Rs.15,000/- but insisted to see the performance for first three months. Accordingly he paid Rs.4136/- including service tax to OP No.1 vide cheque dated 08.08.2009 on the assurance by the representative of OP No.1 that it will increase work of the complainant by providing prospective clients. However, it is alleged that complainant has not got a single reference through OP No.1 and the assurance given by OP No.1 proved to be false and baseless. OP No.1 again approached the complainant for further payments after expiry of first quarter which was refused by the complainant as he was not satisfied with the performance of OP No.1. It is alleged that after some time when complainant visited his bank (OP No.2) to get his passbook updated, it was found that from 16.10.2009 onwards there was ECS debit of Rs.1379/- every month from his A/c No.10945976982 and a total amount of Rs.15,169/- has been debited illegally by OP No.2 and remitted to OP-1 (Just Dial). Complainant immediately on 28.08.2010 asked OP-2 to stop his future ECS debits and further requested the OP-2 to expedite the process and take appropriate action against OP-1. Complainant also made a complainant to the SHO, PS Subzi Mandi to take strict action against O.Ps. It is alleged that conduct of the O.Ps in withdrawal of Rs.15,169/- from the account of the complainant without his consent is deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. On these grounds complainant prays that O.Ps be directed return the entire amount, which has been debited by O.P No.2 through ECS and paid to OP No.1, along with interest apart from cost and compensation as claimed.

2. O.P No.1 appeared and filed written statement. It has not been disputed that complainant, who is an advocate, has availed the services of OP No.1 for enhancement of his work by getting calls of prospective clients. It has also not been disputed that complainant has paid Rs.4136/- on 08.08.2009 as initial payment. However, its case is that there was a legal contract between complainant and OP No.1(Just Dial) vide which OP-1 has offered its services and the same has been accepted by the complainant by signing the contract-cum-invoice-cum-receipt form dated 08.08.2009 and the terms and conditions thereon along with ECS mandate form and addendum etc. It is alleged that complainant who is a practicing advocate after going through all the documents had signed the same. It is also alleged that complainant himself in his own handwriting had filled the contract form and ECS form dated 8.8.2009 authorizing the O.P for ECS payment. Copy of the contract dated 08.08.2009 including terms and conditions along with duly signed ECS mandate form have been filed on record by the OP-1 as Annexure OP-1/B. It has been denied that OP-1 has not provided even a single reference to the complainant. It is alleged that about 400 calls were
forwarded to the complainant between 24/8/2009 to 26/11/2010. However, it is alleged that it is not the fault of OP-1
if the same enquiries forwarded by OP-1 to the complainant were not converted into complainant’s clients. On these facts it is submitted by the OP No.1 that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, therefore the same be dismissed.

3. OP No.2 (SBI) also appeared and filed written statement. It has not been disputed that complainant is having savings bank with O.P bank. Its case is that complainant had authorized OP No.2 to debit his account for making payment to OP No.1 (Just Dial) through ECS (Debit) and acting on the instruction of the complainant, it has debited Rs.1379/- every month and the same were credited to OP No.1 (Just Dial). It is alleged that complainant took annual package of Rs.15,000/- from OP No.1 for enhancement of his work and when no expected results came in his favour, he is trying to shift the liability upon OP No.2. It is submitted by OP No.2 that it has released the amount from the account of the complainant under authorization given by the
complainant to it, hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2. Dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.

4. Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts as alleged in the complaint. Documents have been exhibited as Ex.CW-1/A to CW-1/E. On the other hand, OP-1 has filed affidavit of Sh. Liyaqat Ali, Regional Manager-Administration affirming all the facts contained in the written statement. Documents have been exhibited as Ex.OP-1/A to
OP-1/C. OP-2 has also filed affidavit of Sh. Roop Kishore, Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi testifying all the facts as mentioned in the written statement. Parties have also filed their written submissions.

5. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and also heard submissions of Ld. Counsels of the parties.

6. Complainant has been asked specifically as to how he is ‘consumer’ within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Act and how services hired by him are legal in view of the Rules of ‘Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette’ framed by Bar Council of Delhi? Complainant has argued that he had paid money to OP-1 for services needed by a lawyer. He has argued that if services are illegal, such sites as that of OP-1 should be banned and also Bar Council should take action in this regard. He has argued that he had paid Rs.4136/- and subsequently even though he had not given any authority, OP-2 transferred money from his account to the account of OP-1. It is argued that OP-2 had no right to transfer the amount from his account to OP-1 in as much as OP-1 failed to enhance his clientage. He has argued that OP-1 and OP-2 entered into collusion, therefore they are bound to refund the money illegally deducted from his account.

7. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of OP-1 that agreement had been entered into between complainant and OP-1 whereby the OP-1 had agreed to refer clients to him and atleast 1000 leads were forwarded to the complainant and if he was not able to materialize the leads into clientage, it is not, in any manner, the deficiency of service on the part of OP-1. It is argued that by the agreement in writing complainant has paid Rs.4136/- to OP-1 and subsequently given authority to OP-2 to transfer balance amount from his account through ECS transaction, therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP-1.

8. It is argued on behalf of OP-2 (SBI) that complainant had given ECS mandate (Ex.OP-1/B) and as per the mandate along with
declaration signed by him the bank was obliged to transfer the mandated amount to OP-1.
9. I may mention that the Bar Council of Delhi has framed ‘Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette’. As per item No.36, an advocate is under obligation not to solicit work or advertise, either directly or indirectly, whether by circulars, advertisements, “touts” or solicit work by personal communications, interviews not warranted by personal relations, etc. From the rule of ‘Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette’ a lawyer is debarred from soliciting work directly or indirectly or through “touts”.

What is a “tout”? In our opinion “tout” means a person who brings clientage to a lawyer for reward in terms of money. In the present case the complainant has entered into writing a contract with OP No.1 (Just Dial) which he himself has argued, was for “enhancement of his work”. For that purpose, he had paid a fee of Rs.4136/- and as per agreement the total amount to be paid by him was Rs.15,000/- for which he had also given ECS mandate to OP No.2(SBI) which is Ex. PW-1/B. In the addendum to the terms of service it has been mentioned that complainant shall not have the right to terminate the Contract except by prior written notice or three months issued to JustDial after a minimum period of 9 months from the contract’s effective date. It has also been mentioned in the said terms of service that complainant shall not withdraw the ECS mandate during the
validity of the contract. Complainant had also signed a declaration to this effect. It is, therefore, clear that ECS mandate for monthly payment of amount agreed in the contract has been given to the O.Ps. OP-1 has also placed on record copy of the agreement entered into between complainant as Ex.PW-1/A.

10. From the terms and conditions and modalities, it is clear that OP No.1 was engaged in providing service by referring the “clients” to the lawyers. Both the complainant and the OP-1 call it as “service”. The “service” was not free. Complainant had undertaken to pay Rs.15,000/- for a specified period for referral of clientage to him by OP No.1. The total amount payable to OP-1 was Rs.15,000/- out of which complainant has paid Rs.4136/- initially and for the rest of the amount ECS mandate had been given for monthly remittance from his account maintained with OP-2. In our opinion, for all practical purposes, OP-1 has acted as a “TOUT” inasmuch as to its own admission it has referred clientage against monetary consideration of Rs.15,000/- for period of contract. We are also of the opinion that complainant, knowing fully well that such contract was against public policy and amounted to deviation from the ‘Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette’, as propounded by Bar Council of Delhi, availed the ‘service’ of the OP-1.

11. The grievance of the complainant is that OP-1 failed to enhance his work. In our opinion, the ‘Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette’ are the part of rules framed by Bar Council of Delhi under the Advocate Act and are of statutory nature. They are binding on one and all lawyers enrolled with Bar Council of Delhi and one cannot deviate from the said standards. If one deviates from such standards, it is nothing but professional misconduct on his/her part. Surprisingly enough, complainant has argued that it is for the Bar Council of Delhi to ban such sites. However, the Bar Council of Delhi has framed rules propounding ‘Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette’ and complainant has acted in violation thereof. We have asked the complainant as to how he entered into a contract which is direct violation of ‘Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette’ framed by Bar Council of Delhi? The Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette framed by Bar Council of Delhi being statutory in nature are the part of public policy. No dispute regarding contract in violation of public policy can be entertained by any adjudicating authority assigned with the duty of determining rights and liabilities of the parties. In our opinion the services which amounted to “toutism” and is against the rules framed by
Bar Council of Delhi can neither be enforced nor a lawyer can take benefit thereof.

12. So far as liability of OP-2(SBI) is concerned it is admitted case that complainant has given ECS mandate to deduct amount from his account. He had signed a declaration to this effect, therefore if OP-2 has acted on the mandate given by the complainant, which was not withdrawable during the validity of contract and unless it was given in writing and accepted by the OP-1. The relevant clause (M) of ECS mandate form is as follows:-

“The Auto Debit Instructions/ECS Mandate will be valid for a minimum period of one year from date of signing this mandate and will continue thereon till the time I inform company in writing to discontinue the mandate and the same is accepted by the company.”

13. In view of the above clause, OP-2 cannot be held liable for transfer of amount from the account of complainant to OP-1 on the basis of said mandate as OP-1 has not consented to withdrawal thereof.

14. On the basis of facts referred to above and law as discussed above, we are of considered opinion that the complainant himself is guilty of committing professional misconduct by resorting to availing the services of “TOUT” providing references of cases to the complainant against financial consideration. Such contract being contract against public policy cannot be enforced by forum nor the complaint can be entertained.
15. A copy of this order be sent to Bar Council of Delhi with request to take appropriate measures to ban sites or companies which provide service of “touts” to Practicing lawyers against consideration. Secondly, the Bar Council of Delhi is also requested to issue instructions that lawyers should maintain ‘Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette’ so that sanctity of the noble profession of law could be maintained.

12. In view of the above, we hold that complainant is not entitled for any relief. Complaint is, therefore, dismissed.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties by Registered post and the file be consigned to record room.

Announced this 19th day of August, 2013.

(BABU LAL) (D.R. TAMTA) (MRS.SHAHINA)
President Member Member