DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 29^th day of April, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.2/2007

N.Daiwana,

W/o.Nagarajan.P,

Sreenivasa Nagar,

25/6, MGR Nagar – Virivu,

Madukkarai Road,

Cit Co Post Office,

Coimbatore,

Tamil Nadu 641 021. - Complainant

(By Adv.K.Santhoshkumar)

Vs

G.Ananthakrishnan,

Advocate,

Lakshmy Sadan,

H.P.O, College Road,

Palakkad. - Opposite parties

(By Adv.Sugadhakumar)

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:

Complainant approached opposite party for filing a partition suit between the complainant, her mother and her brother. Accordingly opposite party filed the partition suit. During the pendency of the partition suit complainant's mother died. Prior to death complainant's mother has executed a will bequeathing her share over the immovable property in favour of the complainant and now the complainant is entitled for 2/3^rd share over the said immovable property. According to complainant opposite party has not conducted the case properly. Opposite party has not produced the will executed by the complainant's mother in time and further only one attesting witness was examined. Complainant knows only Tamil and Telugu and during evidence, counsel was asking in Malayalam and such communication gap has adversely affected her case. Further opposite party informed the complainant that what she deposed in her evidence is wrong and its better to compromise the suit. Complainant was forced to sign the compromise petition. Partition suit was ordered in accordance with the

compromise filed. Further opposite party has not returned the entire case file to the complainant. Hence the complainant.

Opposite party filed version with the following contentions. According to opposite party complainant will not come under the definition of consumer as no fees was paid by her. Opposite party conducted the case free of cost as the complainant expressed financial difficulties. Opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service. The entire proceedings including the filing of compromise as well as partition of the plaint schedule properties were done with the consent and concurrence of the complainant and opposite party has not exercised any kind of coercion or undue influence over the complainant in any of the said proceedings. During evidence complainant was examined with the help of a translator appointed by the court. The allegation of the complainant that the opposite party has not produced the will executed by the complainant's mother in favour of the complainant in time before the court is incorrect. Further the averment of the complainant that only one attesting witness was examined is also not correct. According to opposite party complaint is filed with a view to cause harm to the reputation of the opposite party and hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Exts.A1 and A2 marked on the side of the complainant. Exts.B1 to B4 marked on the side of opposite party.

Now the issues for consideration are;

1. Whether the complainant comes under the definition of consumer?

2. Whether the act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service? and

3. If so, what is the reliefs and costs?

Issue No.1: Opposite party has raised a contention that opposite party has conducted the partition suit free of cost. As the complainant has not paid any consideration she will not come under the definition of consumer. Contention of the opposite party seems to be unacceptable. It is difficult to accept the contention that counsel has conducted the case without receiving any amount as fees. Hence the point is answered in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.2: Complainant has stated that the act of the opposite party in conducting

the case negligently amounts to deficiency in service by narrating the following facts. That while taking evidence as the questions were asked in Malayalam there was a communication gap and that has affected her case adversely. Opposite party has not produced the will executed by the mother of the complainant in time and only one witness to the will was examined. Further opposite party compelled the complainant to file compromise petition and entire case records were not returned to the complainant.

While examining the evidence on record, it can be seen that the complainant was examined with the help of a translator named Deepa.R (Ext.B1 series). It is evident from Ext.B3 that the will executed by the complainant's mother was produced before the court. Further Ext.B2, the compromise petition is signed by the complainant. The contention of the complainant that she was forced to sign the compromise petition is not proved by the complainant. Regarding the return of case records in the docket sheet(Ext.B4) the complainant has acknowledged the receipt of the document.

In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

Hence complaint dismissed. No order as to cost.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 29^th day of April, 2009

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Copy of Pattayam

Ext.A2 – Copy of will

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1(Series) – Copy of deposition of complainant in O.S.No.50/01

Ext.B2 – Copy of compromise petition filed by the complainant before Palakkad Sub Court

Ext.B3 – Copy of judgement in O.S.No.50/01 passed by Palakkad Sub Court

Ext.B4 – Docket sheet of case file

Costs (Not allowed)