BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

ATHYDERABAD.

F.A. 984/2006 against C.D. 295/2000, Dist. Forum-III,Hyderabad

Between:

J. Venugopal Rao

S/o. Venakta Rayudu

Age; 74 years,

Flat No. 485,

Triveni Apartments

8-3-969/1,SrinagarHyderabad.                                                                                               

1. Syed Anwar Ahmed

S/o. Syed Masood Ahmed

Age: 40 years

2. Mustafa Kamal

S/o. Muntajibuddin

Age: 31 years

3. Anjuman Ara Begum

D/o. Mohammad Mahaboob Ali Pasha

Age: 51 years,

All are R/o. Eemanbarket village

16-9-32/A/3, Rani Old Market,Hyderabad.          

Counsel for the Appellant:                         

Counsel for the Resps:                               

QUORUM:

&

MONDAY, THE

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

         Hyderabad  

The case of the complainants in brief is thatHyderabad. They were filed Land Grabbing Court.   Land Grabbing Court    Hyderabadrd   Land Grabbing Court              

 While promising to refund the fee                         have been looking after the matters.              

casesLand Grabbing Court   

NalgondaLand           of PW1 while certain documents were filed.     Land Grabbing Court       him 

He expressed his readiness to  unaware of

payment of Rs. 1,900/- to his junior advocates.    Sri Dilsukhram        

The complainants filed affidavit evidence and Exs. A1 to A10, while the appellant filed Exs. B1 to B21 xerox copies of diary extracts and Ex. B22 copy of order of Registrar, Disciplinary Committee.  

Aggrieved by the said decision, the opposite party preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either the facts or law in correct perspective.            

It is not in dispute that the appellant is a practising advocate.      Land Grabbing Court

pending in various courts were transferred to Land Grabbing Court  

It is also not in dispute that the appellant along with his associates one late Sri B. Panduranga Rao, a Retired Dist Judge   

It is also not in dispute that the appellant gave up his vakalat                 

He denied having received any          there is deficiency in service.

The complainant could not establish as to the exact deficiency in service on the part of appellant.    Land Grabbing Court  The fact that     

The contention of the complainant is that she had paid more than       

She appended particulars of payment of fee         which          Unless, she proves that the appellant had agreed to take a particular fee for doing                

At no stretch of imagination, taking fee or receiving                  

In the result the appeal is allowed and consequently the complaint  

PRESIDENT

*pnr

CORRECTED – O.K.