KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.335/2023

JUDGEMENT DATED :18.11.2024

(Against the order in C.C.No.305/2022on 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 and the respondent is the opposite party in C.C.No.305/2022 on the files of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short ‘the District Commission’).

          2.       The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party alleging insufficiency of service in connection with the professional service rendered by the opposite party as a lawyer.  The opposite party entered appearance and filed written statement denying the allegations in the complaint.  Thereafter, the complainant was continuously absent before the District Commission. The complainant also did not file any proof affidavit, in spite of giving sufficient opportunity.  In the said circumstances, the complaint was dismissed for default.

3.       Appellant is present in person.       

4.        Heard.  Perused the records. 

5.       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.

6.   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 the complaint for default.

7.       It appears from the proceedings of the District Commission that the complainant was absent before the District Commission on 30.09.2022, 03.11.2022, 28.11.2022 and 11.01.2023. Therefore, on 11.01.2023, the District Commission dismissed the complaint for default as there was no representation for the complainant continuously. Thus, it appears that the complaint was dismissed by the District Commission on the reason that the complainant was continuously absent on four occasions.

8.       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 11.01.2023 and consequently, the District Commission dismissed the complaint and in the said circumstances, there was no wilful negligence on the part of the appellant in this regard.  

9.       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 30.09.2022 or 03.11.2022 or 28.11.2022 or 11.01.2023.

10.     Having gone through the relevant inputs, we are satisfied that the District Commission was perfectly justified in dismissing the complaint for default.  In the said circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order impugned. 

          In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.  In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

SL