BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No: 129/2011 Filed on 16/04/2011

Dated: 30..04..2011

Complainant:

Ravikrishnan N.R., Advocate, 101 # N.S.P Nagar, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram. Opposite party:

Gladstone, Bench Clerk, Subordinate Judges Court – 3, Vanciyoor, Thiruvananthapuram.

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

Heard the complainant. It is submitted by the complainant that he is an Advocate practicing in Thiruvananthapuram District Court Centre, and that the opposite party is the Bench Clerk in the Second Additional Subordinate Judges Court, Thiruvananthapuram. It has been the case of the complainant that the brother of the complainant engaged him to conduct his case in connection with recovery of money from the land lord, that complainant filed a case as O.S No.112 of 2005 before the Subordinate Judges Court, that subsequently the case was settled between parties, that as per the terms of the compromise, complainant filed two Interlocutory Applications – one of which was ordered by the learned judge, while the other IA to realise the plaint amount was not ordered by the Court, that on enquiry it came to his notice that the opposite party has not taken the second IA to the notices of the Court till date, thereby the opposite party has committed deficiency in service which ultimately led to monetary loss to complainant's client. It has been the stance of the complainant that he is a consumer as he has remitted the fee as per the provision of Kerala Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act. In this connection it has to be noted that the dispute herein pertains to a case pending before the Second Additional Subordinate Judges Court, that the opposite party is the Bench Clerk in the said Court, that complainant has remitted court fee as per Court Fees & Suit Valuation Act to the said Court and not to the opposite party herein, that complainant neither availed any direct service from the opposite party on consideration, nor has opposite party offered any direct service to complainant on consideration. Even if there is delay or dereliction of duty on the part of opposite party in taking the IA in question to the judge concerned, complainant as an Advocate, could very well bring it to the notice of the said Judge, who could take appropriate action against the opposite party if found guilty. In view of the above we find complainant is not a consumer and no consumer dispute involved in this case as no question of rendering service arises. Hence complaint dismissed on Admission Hearing.

  G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

  BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER 

 S.K. SREELA : MEMBER