KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.337/2023

JUDGEMENT DATED :18.11.2024

(Against the order in C.C.No.307/2022on the file of DCDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(Party in person)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  :  PRESIDENT

          The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.307/2022 on the files of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short ‘the District Commission’).

          2.       The appellant filed a complaint against the respondent alleging insufficiency of service on the part of the respondent in conducting the case for the appellant.  The above complaint was filed by the appellant on 27.07.2022.  The cause of action for the complaint arose in the year     2019 when the respondent relinquished the vakalath for the complainant.  Therefore, there was a delay of more than three years in filing the complaint. 

          3.       The complainant filed I.A.No.449/2022 praying for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

          4.       Notice was issued to the opposite party.  The opposite party filed objection to the delay condonation petition.  Thereafter, the complainant was continuously absent.  In view of the continuous absence of the complainant, the I.A.No.449/2022 was dismissed for non-prosecution.  Pursuant to the dismissal of the I.A.No.449/2022, the complaint was dismissed with costs.

          5.       Appellant is present in person. 

         6.         Heard.  Perused the records. 

          7.       This is a complaint filed against an advocate alleging deficiency in service in his professional conduct as a lawyer.  In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bar of Indian Lawyers vs.
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases (2024 KHC 6283 : 2024 INSC 410 2024 : SCC Online SC 928),no consumer dispute would arise with respect to the service rendered by an Advocate.  In view of the above settled position as laid down by the Apex Court, the present complaint is not maintainable.

8.   However, independently and untrammelled by the above position, we are inclined to appreciate the relevant inputs to decide as to whether there was any justification on the part of the District Commission in dismissing I.A.No.449/2022 for non-prosecution and the consequential dismissal of the complaint.

9.       The respondent appeared and filed objection to I.A.No.449/2022.  However, the complainant was continuously absent.  It appears from the proceedings of the District Commission that the complainant was absent on 15.10.2022, 19.11.2022 and 27.12.2022.  This would show that the petitioner/complainant was continuously absent on three consecutive posting dates.  In the said circumstances, the District Commission dismissed the delay condonation petition for non-prosecution. Consequently, the complaint was also dismissed.

10.     The appellant would contend that the appellant was under treatment before different hospitals during the pendency of the case and hence he could not appear before the District Commission on 27.12.2022 and consequently, the District Commission dismissed the complaint.  In the said circumstances, there is no wilful negligence on the part of the appellant in this regard.        

          11.     The appellant produced some medical certificates along with the appeal, which would show that the appellant was under treatment from 30.10.2022 to 02.11.2022 and from 13.12.2022 to 14.12.2022.  However, no medical certificate was produced showing that the appellant was under treatment as an inpatient in the hospital on 15.10.2022 or 19.11.2022 or 27.12.2022.

          12.     Having gone through the relevant inputs, we are satisfied that the District Commission was perfectly justified in dismissing I.A.No.449/2022 for non-prosecution and the consequential dismissal of the complaint.  The District Commission ordered costs of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One Thousand only).  We are satisfied that the costs ordered by the District Commission can be set aside as the Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent legislation.  Accordingly, we order so. In the said circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order impugned, except the order of costs. 

          In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.  However, we set aside the costs ordered by the District Commission.  In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this appeal.

SL