1. Smt. Beena Kumari. A 2. Smt. S.K.Sreela 3. Sri G. Sivaprasad
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER C.C.No. 254/2005 Filed on 22.07.2005 Dated : 30.10.2008 Complainant: Nazeerudeen, S/o Noohukannu, Charuvila Puthen Veedu, Kamukinkuzhi, Pulimathu Village, Thalikuzhi. P.O. Opposite party : Adv. Anil Kumar. B.S, Bineetha Nivas, Pallikkal, Madavoor P.O, Thiruvananthapuram. (By adv. K.O. Asokan) This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 20.06.2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 29.09.2008, the Forum on 30.10.2008 delivered the following: ORDER SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A : MEMBER The facts of the case are as follows: The complainant had entrusted the opposite party, who is an advocate, to file a petition before the Hon'ble High Court to get an order to treat his father who is a lunatic to a mental asylum. For that the complainant had paid Rs. 3000/- as advocate fee. But the opposite party did not obtain the order from the Hon'ble High Court and thereby committed deficiency in service. The complainant after two years obtained the order from the High Court through another advocate. The complainant approached several times to the opposite party for the repayment of Rs. 3000/-. All the efforts of the complainant were in vain. Hence he filed this complaint against the opposite party before this Forum. The opposite party remained exparte. Points to be ascertained: (i)Whether the complaint is barred by limitation? (ii)Whether there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite party? (iii)Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs? Points (i) to (iii) :- In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit and he was examined as PW1. In this case the complainant has not produced any document to prove his complaint. His case is that he had entrusted the opposite party to obtain an order from the Hon'ble High Court and he paid Rs. 3000/- as fee, but the opposite party did not file the case before the court and did not obtain the order. The complainant stated that he is working abroad. He several times informed the opposite party about the order, but the opposite party evaded from answering it. At last the complainant approached another advocate and obtained an order. The complainant's demand for repayment of the amount was refused by the opposite party. But the complainant has not produced any document to prove his case. Even though the opposite party is ex-parte, we have no evidence to allow the complaint and more over the complainant himself had admitted that the transaction took place 3½ years ago from the date of filing of the complaint. There is no evidence produced by the complainant that there is continuous cause of action. From the above it is seen that the complaint has not been filed within time. The complainant has not adduced any explanation for the said delay. Hence we find that the complaint is barred by limitation. Hence the complaint is dismissed. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30th October 2008. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT S.K. SREELA : MEMBER C.C.No. 254/2005 APPENDIX I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - Nazeerudeen II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : NIL III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : NIL PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A ......................Smt. S.K.Sreela ......................Sri G. Sivaprasad
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
