IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM
Dated this the 1st day of December 2018
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President
Sri. M.Praveen Kumar,Bsc, LL.B ,Member
CC.No.212/16
Manoharan Pillai : Complainant
Nenmeniyottu
Venchempu P.O,Punalur.
V/s
Adv.Mohanachandran : Opposite party
Vellasseril,Sheela Bhavan
Thevally Ward
Kollam-691009
[By Adv.Boris Paul]
FAIR ORDER
E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , President
This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed against
Adv.Mohana Chandran under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The allegations in the complaint in short are as follows.
The complainant has given necessary instructions to the opposite party and also executed vakalath in OS 124/01 and OS 67/15 and also given necessary fee for conducting the above two cases. He has given instruction to conduct the case directly and by phone. Whenever he met the opposite party lawyer he was forced to pay fee. While so the opposite party directed the complainant to file another case before Karunagappay court through Adv. Abhayan. But he was not ready for the same and told opposite party lawyer that no further case is necessary and the 2 cases filed by him has to be concluded at the earliest. However when the opposite party insisted by stating that the filing of a case before Karunagappally court is necessary to strengthen OS 67/05. Hence he yielded and signed vakalath and entrusted required fee to the opposite party to be given to Adv.Abhayan at Karunagappally. Vocationally the
2
opposite party lawyer used to call him over phone to enquire about the details of the case and he also used to appear at the opposite party’s office and to pay Advocate fee. One day he appeared at the office of the lawyer Mohana Chandran and heard one retired Major using abusive language against the opposite party lawyer and thereafter he met the opposite party and thereupon the opposite party demanded fee. He has not given the same and rushed to the court and enquired about his case. Thereupon it was informed that the case has been already been dismissed for not filing vakalath by Adv.Mohana Chandran. He has also gathered information from the court that one commission was appointed in the case and the proceedings of the commission was over. Immediately he rushed towards the commissioner Adv.Mohanlal through Adv.Akshadharan. It was also understood that the minor Dhananjayan was removed from the party array and the defendant compromised the case by filing compromise petition and also obtained a decree. He filed 2nd opposite parties through Adv.Mohanlal and now the above cases have been pending as OS 54 and OS 308(year of the above two cases not mentioned in the complaint). The opposite party Adv.Sri.Mohanachandran has obtained Rs.7000/- as fee for OS 67/05 and fee Rs.8500/- for OS 124/01 and also obtained a fee of Rs.13000/- for the non filed case and altogether the opposite party collected Rs.28500/- from the complainant without filing vakalath by making the complainant to believe that he would conduct the above cases. When he demanded to return the amount, the opposite party threatened the complainant by deputing quotation gunda party. He filed complaint before police and also before the bar council. Bar council has registered the case No.1/16 against the opposite party lawyer and suspended him. According to the complainant the opposite party lawyer has committed the above misconduct and unfair trade practice with a view to assist the defendant in the above cases. It is further alleged that the opposite party has made the complainant to believe that he is
3
the member of the advocate family having high status and obtained the above amount as fee form the complainant and cheated him without even filing vakalath and the same has caused mental agony apart from financial loss to the complainant. Therefore according to the complainant he is entitled to get Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation from the opposite party lawyer.
In response to the notice opposite party entered appearance. However he has not filed any version, though sufficient opportunity was granted for filing version. On 28.04.17 when the case was called on the learner counsel for the opposite party called absent and on the subsequent posting dates there was no representation for the opposite party. Hence we have decided to proceed with the matter without any version and posted the case for recording evidence.
Complainant filed proof affidavit by reiterating the averments in the affidavit and got marked Ext.P1 series, P2 series, MO1 and MO2. As the complainant has not been cross examined the opposite party has been set exparte.
Heard the counsel for the complainant.
As there is no contest in the matter there is no need to raise any point.
The specific case of the complainant is that though he entrusted his vakalath to the opposite party lawyer and paid fee for filing 2 civil suit and he has entrusted fee and signed vakalath to one Abhayan at Karunagappally through the opposite party to institute another suit. But the opposite party Advocate has not properly contested the two cases nor caused to file a suit at Karunagappally through Advocate Abhayan. It is the further case of the complainant that the opposite party Advocate has deliberately not contested the case on behalf of the complainant though he obtained vakalath from the complainant and received the required fee he has not filed the vakalath before court nor proceeded with the case and the 2 cases happened to be dismissed for default. Hence the complainant filed a petition before police and as instructed
4
by the police he has filed a complaint before Bar Council of Kerala, Eranakulam and the Bar Council conducted enquiry and the opposite party has been barred from practicing as a lawyer for 6 months.
The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.P1 and P2 documents would establish the above case of the complainant. It is clear from the available materials that as the opposite party Advocate has not properly conducted the case in OS 67/05 and OS 124/01 the same happened to be dismissed and thereby the complainant suffered much loss apart from mental agony. It is also clear from the available materials that the opposite party persuaded the complainant and obtained Rs.13500/- by making him to believe that another case has to be filed before the Civil court, Karunagappally to strengthen the already existing O.S.67/05. But the opposite party failed to handover the amount to Adv.Abhayan nor caused him to file the case. The above Act of the complainant would definitely attract deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It is further to be pointed out that though very grave allegations are raised in this complaint and the opposite party is aware of the same he has not chosen to contest the matter which also would probabalise the case of the complaint.
In view of the materials discussed above it is clear that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party Advocate. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get a reasonable compensation.
In the result the complaint stands allowed directing the opposite party Advocate to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of complaint till realisation. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as costs of this proceeding to the complainant.
5
The opposite party is directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest as ordered above within 45 days from today failing which the complainant is allowed to realise the said amount along with interest @ 6% p.a till the date of order and thereafter @ 9% p.a till realisation along with costs Rs.5000/- from the opposite party and his assets.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt.Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 1st day of December 2018.
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
M.Praveen Kumar:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.P1 : Copy of complaint issued by Bar council
Ext.P2 : Copy of order issued by Bar council
Ext.MO1 : Pendrive
Ext.MO2 : DVD
Witness examined for the opposite party:-Nil
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
M.Praveen Kumar:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
