DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD Dated this the 14th Day of November 2011 Present : Smt.Seena H, President : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing:29/01/2011 (C.C.No.16/2011) Harry Lawrence, S/o.(Late) Lawrence David, Haritha, Anand Nagar, Near Railway Hospital, Kallekulangara (PO), Palakkad. (By Party in Person) - Complainant V/s C.Ravindran, Advocate, ‘Venubala’, Puthur, Palakkad. (By Party in Person) - Opposite party O R D E R By Smt.SEENA.H. PRESIDENT Complaint in brief. Complainant has entrusted with the opposite party among other files one case against V.N.Hareesh numbered OS 317/2005 and one against Anaswara Grama Vyavasaya Vikasana Samithi in the year 2006-07. OS 317/2005 (Harry Lawrence Vs Hareesh) which is a suit on promissory note was filed by Adv.S.M.Unnikrishnan which was later entrusted with the opposite party on 1/1/2006. The said suit was filed on 2/11/2005. Full amount of court fee of Rs.47,830/- was collected on 1/6/2006 itself and again collected Rs.2,380/- as difference in court fee. On repeated enquiries by the complainant opposite party informed that the case was decreed at the end of August 2006. Thereafter complainant was not served with a Judgment copy even though demanded on 31/3/2007. Complainant was asked to pay Rs.1320/- for execution petition purpose. On repeated request upon the progress of the EP, it was informed by the opposite party that matter was stayed by a Higher court. Later complainant came to know that OS 317/2005 was dismissed on 27/9/2006. Opposite party has handed over some of the documents to the complainant, but many of the documents are still in the custody of the opposite party and the opposite party has not even returned the same. Complainant has sent a registered notice dated 03/8/2010 to opposite party for which no reply was sent. The grievance of the complainant is that even after dismissal of the case, opposite party collected money from the complainant and the entire amount paid by the complainant for court fee was misappropriated by the opposite party. The amount involved in the said case was Rs.4,94,230/- with future interest. Opposite party is responsible for the loss sustained to the complainant. The other grievance is with respect to another money suit entrusted with opposite party for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with 18% interest. For the said case an amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid on 1/6/2006. It was said that Rs.2,500/- was towards court fee and Rs.2500/- was towards professional fee. Again opposite party demanded Rs.7,000/- as balance amount on 22/6/2006, Rs.750/- as court fee on 23/1/2007 and further fee of Rs.1,000/- was also paid. Opposite party informed the complainant that the case has been filed in the month of July 2006. On further enquiry it was said that case was filed before the Registrar of Co.operative Societies office, Trivandrum and the said office will transfer the case to Palakkad. Complainant has sent two registered letters seeking the status of the case. Though received no reply was sent by opposite party. In the meantime ‘Anaswara Grama Vyavasaya Vikasana Samithi’ closed down and all their operations were stopped and they have sold out all their assets and properties. On enquiry it was revealed that Anaswara Grama Vyavasaya Samithi has not received any form of communication from any authorities regarding any complaint filed by the complainant. On mediation with the company, an amount of Rs.80,000/- was paid to complainant. Balance amount is still to be paid. Complainant understood that the opposite party has not filed any complaint against the company. According to the complainant it is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party Rs.12,59,174/ being the financial loss with interest alongwith Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony. Opposite party filed version contending the following: Opposite party admits entrust of the two case files as stated by the complainant along with many other cases also. With regard to OS 317/05, opposite party admits receipt of Rs.43,047/- for the purpose of payment towards balance Court Fee. Opposite party in OS 317/05 has not appeared before the court. Complainant was attempting for a settlement with the respondent in that case. Further complainant instructed the opposite party that no further investment to be made in the said case as it was going to be settled and the amount paid could be adjusted towards the legal fee and expenses to be paid by the complainant. So the court fee was not paid and the suit was caused to be dismissed. With regard to the 2nd case, it was found that the firm was not in existence and further there was an issue of limitation also as the file was entrusted only in the year 2006. That matter also complainant was trying for settlement with some members and ultimately it was settled even without the knowledge of the opposite party. Opposite party has handed over entire documents pertaining to the cases to the complainant in the year 2009.
The evidence adduced by both parties consists of their respective chief affidavit and Ext.A1 to Ext.8 marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 to B2 marked on the side of the opposite party.
Now the issues for consideration are - Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
- If so, what is the relief and cost complainant entitled to ?
Issues 1 & 2 Complainant is alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, Advocate with respect to two case files entrusted to him. The allegation with respect to one case is that opposite party failed to deposit the balance court fee paid by the complainant which resulted in dismissal of the suit. Further without informing the said fact opposite party realized amount from the complainant under the pretext of other legal expenses and so on. With regard to the 2nd case opposite party made believe the complainant that the case was filed which actually was not filed by the opposite party. Opposite party refuse the allegations of complainant stating that it was only as per the instructions of the complainant court fee was not paid as the matter was going to be settled. With respect to the other case also there was an issue of limitation and further complainant was trying for settlement. The said matter was settled even without the knowledge of the opposite party. Hence no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. It is an admitted case that complainant has entrusted the two case files mentioned in the complaint along with many other case files with the opposite party. Opposite party has admitted receipt of the balance court fee as stated by the complainant on 1/6/2006. Ext.A8, the certified copy of the decree passed in OS 317/05 shows that the respondent was exparte in the matter and suit was dismissed for not seeking steps. Balance court fee in the said case is also not paid. Ext.B1 document supports the say of the opposite party that balance court fee was not paid as per the direction of the complainant. In Ext.B1 it is clearly stated that both matters are going to be settled and hence not to be proceed with the above cases. The amount already paid as court fee to be adjusted to other files is also mentioned in the said letter. Complainant argues for the position that the said documents are false and fabricated documents which the opposite party made misusing the signed blank papers taken from the complainant for court purposes. In the absence of any cogent evidence with respect to the said allegation we are not in a position to accept the say of the complainant. Moreover fabrication of document is not a matter to be decided by the Forum also. Further complainant is admitting the signature in the said documents which leads to a presumption that he has the knowledge of the matter stated in it. With respect to the case against Anaswara, complainant has admitted that on mediation an amount of Rs.80,000/- was paid. This also establishes the case of the opposite party that settlement talks were going on with the parties. Ext.B2 shows that the entire case bundle was handed over to the complainant on 12/10/2008. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that complainant miserably failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence the compliant dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this the 14th day of November 2011 Sd/- Seena.H President Sd/- Preetha G Nair Member Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K. Member APPENDIX Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext.A1 – Original Receipt for Rs.43,047/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 1/6/06 Ext.A2 – Original Receipt for Rs.2380/- received from the opposite party (original) dated 24/8/06 Ext.A3 – Copy of registered letter, postal receipt and postal acknowledgment cards dated 12/10/07 Ext.A4 - Copy of registered letter, postal receipt and postal acknowledgment cards dated 28/4/09 Ext.A5- Copy of registered letter, postal receipt and postal acknowledgment cards dated 3/8/10 Ext.A6 – Petition prepared by the opposite party singed by the complainant but not filed dated 1/6/06 Ext.A7 – Original receipt for Rs.5,000/- issued by opposite party dated 1/6/06 Ext.A8 – True copy of OS 317/2005 Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party Ext.B1 – Letter dated 24/8/2006 sent by the complainant to opposite party Ext.B2 – Acknowledgment of case records received by the complainant. | 
