Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/150/2014

S. VENUGOPAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARUNA GANESH - Opp.Party(s)

PARTY IN PERSON

27 Nov 2015

ORDER

    

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                                    BEFORE        Thiru. A.K.ANNAMALAI            PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                                                             Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                      MEMBER

                                                                                          

M.P.NO. 314/2015 IN CC.NO.150/2014

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015

Aruna Ganesh

Sairam Apartments 4^th Floor

Raja annamalaipuram 1^st Main Road

Chennai 600 028                                                            ..Petitioner/opp.party

                                                           Vs

S.Venugopal

Old No 16, New No.20, Door No 10,

Rams Flats(Subha Sree)

Postal colony,

4^th street, West Mambalam

Chennai 600 017                                                     ..Respondent/complainant

 

Counsel for the Petitioner/opp.party        : M/s S.Palanivelayutham

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant  : Mr.S.Venugopal

 

                                         ORDER

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

1.                  Petition praying for rejection of complaint by way of raising the preliminary objection.

2.                   The Respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging certain deficiency in service regarding the case entrusted for trial to her as an Advocate. The case was taken on file by this Commission in C.C.No.150/2014 by the order dated 9.9.2014 against which the petitioner/opposite party filed the Revision before the National Commission, New Delhi in which Hon’ble National Commission has directed this Commission to decide the issues relating to the complaint in its order in RP 362/2015, 363/2015  with IA 984 & 985, IA 986 & 987/2015 dated 1.4.2015.

1. that the notice in complaint has been issued him without examining whether the complaint was within the period of limitation and
2. In the absence of specific order by the Bench, the Registrar was not competent to admit the complaint.

3.      On that basis, this petition was entertained and the petitioner/opposite party alleging various reasons and other short coming of the Respondent/complainant regarding the dealing with the case entrusted to the petitioner through her senior counsel under whom subsequently she came out from his service and the main allegation regarding the appeal filed since the matter was closed in the year 2000 itself and after 14 years, the complainant filed the complaint without filing any condone delay petition, the complaint is barred by limitation and the complaint to be rejected.

 

4.           The Respondent/complainant filed the counter in this petition stating that since no Advocate was willing to move against the another Advocate, the complainant had to file the case by himself assuming that Thanjavur came under the Madurai Jurisdiction and moved before the Madurai Bench and circuit Bench, Madurai through the proper Forum on 7.4.2014 and on that basis, the complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service against the petitioner/opposite party before this Commission praying for direction to pay Rs.2500/- paid to the opposite party as her fee with 12% p.a. interest and directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs as compensation for her negligence and directing to pay Rs.5 lakhs for pain and  mental agony caused by the negligent act of the opposite party by considering the age of the complainant, directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- against the cost for the complaint.

 

5.             The main allegation of the complainant is that he has filed a consumer complaint in District Forum, Thanjavur in O.P.No. 148/1999    and was allowed in favour of the complainant with direction to collect the original document from the Bank from where he had obtained the loan but no compensation was awarded by the District Forum. Hence the complainant approached the petitioner/opposite party to file an appeal before the State Commission for which the petitioner/opposite party had furnished a number as 849/2000 as appeal Number, but since 2010 nothing was heard and the complainant moved before the State Commission to ascertain the status through RTI application and came to know, no such appeal was pending or filed and thereby on getting a reply from the opposite party letter dated 7.7.2011 stating steps are being taken to re-construct the appeal which was also not found to be true after issuing a legal notice dated 22.11.2012, he had filed a complaint which is in dispute now.

 

6.             We have heard both side arguments and contentions. According to the petitioner, the complainant’s appeal was said to have been considered by the State Commission in FA 849/2000 which was disposed off in the year itself and since the petitioner being the junior of the particular senior Advocate whose name was not pointed out by the petitioner, she left the service from him and she had not followed the case, she came to know details only from the notice received from the complainant at her Senior’s Law Chamber address. Whereas the Respondent/complainant alleged that he had taken various steps regarding the fate of the appeal by sending communications and after 2010 and came to know finally on the basis of letter received by the petitioner/opposite party, that the steps were taken to re-construct the appeal  papers which was also not materialised, he filed a complaint.

 

7.                While considering these materials and contention, the complainant eventhough not cared the result of fate of the appeal filled with the belief and faith with petitioner/opposite party only came to know about it during the year 2011 by the letter received from the petitioner/opposite party dated 7.7.2011  mentioned as document No.8 stating steps are taken for re-construction of the appeal by sending the papers for the signature of the complainant and thereupon after getting information under RTI Act 2005. In 2012, the complaint came to be filed in 2014. Though the complaint was barred by limitation, in 2013 itself, in view of the reply letter sent by the petitioner/opposite party dated 7.7.2011, the complainant being old aged man of 87 years having contended that no Advocate to come forward to file the complaint against another Advocate/Petitioner, he himself filed this complaint which ought to have been filed during the year 2013 itself and the complaint was actually filed before the Commission only on 25.7.2014 and after hearing the complainant in person, this Commission consisting of the President and other two members directed the Registry to number the complaint on 9.9.2014 and thereby the complaint came to be filed after the notice was served to the Respondent/opposite party, to this petitioner.

 

8.       The petitioner/opposite party relied upon the citation ruling in

                    II(2009) CPJ 29 S.C

                     IV (2010) CPJ 27 S.C and

                     II (2015) CPJ 553 (NC)

     regarding the limitation point, though they are reliable for this case

9.           While considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, this petition to be allowed and the complaint is liable to dismissed as barred by limitation. Though we are allowing this petition, we are inclined to give liberty to the Respondent/complainant for filing fresh complaint with proper petition u/s 24 A(2) of C.P Act and this observation, this petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

         In the result, petition is allowed. Liberty is given to the Respondent/complainant to file fresh complaint with necessary petition u/s  24 A(2) of C.P. Act 1986, if so desired.  

          No order as to costs.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                            A.K.ANNAMALAI                            

   MEMBER                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER                  

                                        

                                                                      

                                        C.C.NO. 150/2014

                   DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015

 

        In view of the order passed in M.P.314/2015,, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint along with necessary petition u/s  24 A(2) of C.P. Act 1986, if so desired within one month from the date of receipt of order copy.

          No order as to costs.

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                     A.K.ANNAMALAI          

    MEMBER                                                                          (PJM)