IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 15th day of January, 2018
Filed on 08.06.2017
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No. 151/2017
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri.Jacob K. Philip Advocate M. Jayaram
Kalamputtseril Jai Nilayam
Kumarakam. Thondankulangara Ward
Kottayam-686563 Alappuzha
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
On 20/3/2014 complainant approached the opposite party to file an appeal before the Land Reform Appellate Authority Alappuzha and he entrusted required documents along with the cheque for Rs. 5000/- towards fees. But even after 2 months opposite party failed to file appeal. So the complainant asked the opposite party to return the documents along with fees. But he did not return it. Hence he again asked the opposite party to file an appeal. On 5/8/2014 the opposite party prepared the appeal and the complainant was asked to sign vakalath and again demanded Rs. 3000/- towards fees. The opposite parties name was not seen in the vakalath. There after he came to know that the opposite party is not a practicing lawyer. So he asked to return the documents along with fees. Opposite party refused to do so. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complaint is filed.
2. Version of the 1st opposite party is as follows:-
Complaint is barred by limitation. Complainant approached the opposite party only for preparing appeal memorandum and not for filing an appeal. The complainant produced a copy of the order of Kottayam Land Tribunal to prepare the appeal memorandum. Opposite party drafted the appeal memorandum and entrusted the manuscript to the complainant on 25/3/2014. He did not demand any amount towards fees but complainant gave him the fees. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Complainant was examined as PW1 the documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A4. Ext.A2 and A4, marked subjected to objection.
The points for the consideration are as follows:-
- Whether the complaint is barred by limitation.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
It is an admitted fact that on March 2014 complainant approached the opposite party to prepare an appeal memorandum. According to the complainant he entrusted the required documents and Rs. 5000/- towards fees with the opposite party for filing an appeal. According to the opposite party the complainant approached him only for preparing appeal memorandum and not for filing an appeal. Complainant further stated that he signed vakalath only on 5/8/14 and he came to see that the opposite party’s name was not in the list of advocates there in and he asked the opposite party not to file an appeal. It is an admitted fact that complainant filed an appeal before Kottayam. While cross examining the complainant, he answered to the question put by the opposite party’s counsel. Apart from that he admitted that he had seen opposite party only on 22 March 2014 and he filed an appeal before Kottayam through Adv. Radhakrishnan. On going through the facts and circumstance of the case we came to see that complainant received back the documents from the opposite party on March 2014, and thereafter he filed the complaint before this Forum, alleging deficiency in service only on 8/6/17ie after a period of 2 years. According to the complainant he filed the complaint before the Bar Association Secretary on 5/2/15. But copy of the complaint is not produced. More over mere sending a notice does not give rise to fresh cause of action and hence the complaint is barred by limitation. On going through the facts of the case we came to see that opposite party prepared the appeal memorandum and he returned documents to the complainant and complainant filed case before the proper authority at Kottayam. The complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
In the result the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 15th day of January, 2018. Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/-Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Jacob.K.Philip (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Statement of Account
Ext.A2 - Copy of the Vakalath (Sub to Obj)
Ext.A3 - Statement of facts(Sub to obj)
Ext.A4 - Copy of Notice(Sub to Obj)
Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
