By. Smt. Beena. M, Member:
Brief facts of the case:-
The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant entrusted to conduct the case No. OA 172 / 2015 before Ernakulum Debts Recovery Tribunal-I to the Opposite Party, who is an advocate, in which the Complainant is the respondent and Federal Bank, Kalpetta branch is the petitioner. Even though the Opposite Party has received money from the Complainant as the expense for conducting
the case he did not attend the case and has not conducted the case properly. As a consequence, the above said case was decreed against the Complainant. Thereafter, the Opposite Party again demanded money by saying that he will obtain stay order. So the Complainant paid first installment. But he dragged the matter by saying one and another reasons and after that several times the Complainant tried to contact the Opposite Party through phone, but there was no response. In the meantime, the bank started execution proceedings against the Complainant by demanding huge amount as interest. The Complainant paid Rs.47,000/- to the Opposite Party for contesting the case, but the Opposite Party did not conduct the case properly and thereby cheated the Complainant. Hence the Complainant prays before the Commission to direct the Opposite Party to return Rs.47,000/-, which he had paid as advocate fee and Rs.10,000/-towards compensation and for the cost of the proceedings.
2. Notice was issued to the Opposite Party from this Commission, which was duly served, but as he failed to appear the Commission set him ex-parte.
3. On perusal of the complaint and documents the Commission raised the following points for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service from the Opposite Party’s side?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled get back any amount from the Opposite Party as refund.
- Whether the Opposite Party is liable to pay any amount as compensation?
- Relief and cost.
4. Points No. 1 to 4 :- For the sake of convenience and brevity all points are considered together.
5. Evidence in this case consists of the affidavit of Complainant and the oral evidence given as PW-1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the sale proclamation issued by the debt recovery tribunal, A2 series are the receipts of money sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party and A3 series are the courier receipts.
6. The main allegation set forth in the complaint is that the complainant engaged the opposite party advocate for conducting his case before Eranakulam Debts Recovery Tribunal-I and had paid Rs.47,000/- as legal expenses but he failed to contest the matter properly and thus he suffered difficulty and huge loss. The Complainant produced the receipts to prove that the Opposite Party received an
amount of Rs.47,000 as advocate fee. However, as per the sworn statements given by the Complainant and receipts produced by the Complainant, we believe that the Opposite Party must have collected some fees from the Complainant. Anyhow, this aspect is not much material since every advocate is entitled to collect some fee from their clients. The initial burden lies on the Complainant to show that the Opposite Party never attended for the adjournments of this case from the date of filing the Vakkalath. But the Complainant did not choose to file any documentary evidence to show the absence of his advocate i.e Opposite Party. A careful reading of the complaint, it is seen that there is no allegation or pleading regarding deficiency of service, negligence, act of omission or unfair trade practice from the Opposite Party’s side. The only allegation set forth in the complaint is the Opposite Party committed professional misconduct and grab money from the Complainant. As there is no evidence for allegation regarding deficiency of service, negligence, act of omission or unfair practice the complaint cannot be considered. In the above circumstances, we do not find any evidence on the side of the Complainant to prove alleged deficiency of service, negligence, act of omission or unfair practice. So, the points are found against the Complainant.
In the result, the complaint is hereby dismissed without cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 15th day of January 2021.
Date of Filing:-06.06.2019.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Sudharsanan. Agriculture.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Notice for settling a Sale Proclamation. Dt:07.05.2019.
A2(a). Receipt. Dt:20.10.2015.
A2(b). Receipt. Dt:14.01.2016.
A2(c). Receipt. Dt:11.06.2018.
A2(d). Receipt. Dt:21.04.2016.
A2(e). Receipt. Dt:20.10.2015.
A2(f). Receipt. Dt:23.12.2015.
A3(a). Courier Receipt. Dt:09.08.2018.
A3(b). Courier Receipt. Dt:22.05.2018
A3(c). Courier Receipt. Dt:05.10.2018
Exhibits for the opposite party:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRC, WAYANAD.
