Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

241/2013

S.Ramajayam,S/o.Late D.Selva Arasan,News Editor, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr.S.Gunaseelan,Advocate - Opp.Party(s)

S.Ramajayam

26 May 2016

ORDER

                                                           Complaint presented on  :  18.12.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on  :  26.05.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,         :      PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,            :     MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY  THE  26^th    DAY OF MAY 2016

 

C.C.NO.241/2013

 

 

 

S.Ramajayam,

S/o. Late D.Selva Arasan,

News Editor,

“Manisudar” Daily Newspaper,

36, Marikkayar Street,

Mannady, Chennai 600 001.

                                                                                             ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

	1.Mr.S.Gunaseelan, Advocate, New No.331, (Old  No.151) First Floor, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai – 600 001.   2.Mr.C.Venkatesan, Advocate, New No.331, (Old No.151) First Floor, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai – 600 001.
	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  20.12.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      :Party in person

Counsel for Opposite parties                   :Mr.E.Chandran

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1. THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant worked as a Journalistic work man with the 3 management of the Thina Thanthi Daily, Vaaranthara Rani and Rani Comics. The Complainant raised industrial disputes against 3 managements and filed 3 writ petitions before the Hon’ble High Court, Madras.  The said writ petitions was dismissed and against the dismissal to file 3 writ appeals the Complainant engaged the services of the Opposite Parties and they have filed writ appeal after collecting material from the Complainant. The writ appeal was initially numbered as M.P.S.R.No.23721/2010, M.P.S.R.No.23665/2010 and M.P.S.R.No23873/2010 against the managements Thina Thanthi Daily, Vaaranthara Rani and Rani Comics respectively.  On 15.07.2011, the 1^st Opposite Party informed the Complainant that M.P.S.R.No.23665/2010 against the management of Vaaranthara Rani was dismissed on 28.04.2010 by the first bench at the admission stage itself. He further told the Complainant that he applied for the certified copy of the dismissal order. However nearly after a period 1 ½ year informed him that the order copy was not ready. The Complainant had suspicion and contacted the Registrar on 21.11.2012 and made a Complaint and on the next day the section traced out the case bundle and the Registrar informed him that the Opposite Parties applied for the certified copy of the  order without mentioning the W.A.NO. 1149/2011.  Then on 26.11.2012 the Opposite Parties have freshly applied for the certified copy of the order in W.A.No.1149/2011 and received the original copy on 03.12.2012.Therefore there is a delay of 1 ½ year in getting the certified copy  of the dismissed order had been occurred due to the Deficiency in Service of the Opposite Parties.

          2. The Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to file a review petition and the Opposite Parties refused to file the same and returned the file. The Complainant engaged another counsel to file review petition was not fruitful due to inordinate delay and then he also approached the Supreme Court to file a SLP that was also not fruitful for the very same reason. Hence the Complaint sustained a loss of Rs.4,35,217.74/- towards his arrears of salary from Vaaranthara Rani due to the deficient act of the Opposite Parties.

          3. After obtaining the order copy in W.A.No.1149/2011, the Complainant insisted to list the other two writ appeals for admission. The Opposite Parties informed to the Complainant that the writ appeal against Thina Thanthi is   being pending in the notice issue section of the High Court for more than one year. Here also the Opposite Parties failed to pursue the matter quickly and thereby the Complainant deprived to recover the arrears of salary amount of Rs.70,7,953.21/-.

          4. As per the computer records the case against Rani comics had been returned on 12.04.2010 for correction. When the Complainant contacted the Opposite Parties to represent the case, they replied that it has been already represented and duly passed on 22.04.2010. However, the case was not listed by them. In this management the Complainant entitled for arrears of Rs.5,19,513.50/-. The Complainant  was unable to trace the bundle for more than 3 ½ years.

          5. The Opposite Parties wrote to the Complainant on 29.11.2013 that they have withdrawn the representation in his case and also refused to return the fee collected from him. When the Complainant contacted the other counsel to continue his writ appeal, they expressed their inability to appear in the midway process. Now the Complainant is like a fish out of water. The Complainant entitlement to recover the amount is curtailed due to the deficient act of the Opposite Parties and for which they have to compensate the Complainant. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties to direct them to pay his claim in his cases and also to pay compensation for mental agony with costs of the Complaint.

6.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          It is admitted that the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties to filed 3 writ appeals against the order passed in W.P.No.22428, 22429 and 22430/2003. There is a delay of 286 days in filing the writ appeal. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- by way of cheque towards the remuneration and the same was returned  for want of funds and again the Complainant gave another cheque for Rs.5,000/- and he never paid Rs.10,000/- in cash. The Complainant furnished only one common order copy instead of 3 copies. They have filed writ appeals with condonation of delay of 286 days and petition to dispense with production of original order copy on 11.03.2010. The dispensation of production of original order was allowed and delay petition was numbered.

1. The W.A.S.R.No.23665 of 210 in M.P.No.1 of 2010 (Vaaranthara Rani)

2. The W.A.S.R.No.23721 of 2010 in M.P.No.1 of 2010 (Thina Thanthi)

3. The W.A.S.R.No.23873 of 2010 in M.P.No.1 of 2010 (Rani Comics) on

   22.04.2010

 

At the instruction of the Complainant  the writ appeal against Vaaranthara Rani was brought before the first bench on 28.04.2010  and after service of notice and again it was posted before the first bench on 15.07.2011 and  after hearing both sides the Hon’ble first bench dismissed the case at the admission stage.

7. On the same day the first Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the copy application is filed in M.P.No.1/2010 in W.A.S.R.No 23665 / 2010.  The 2^nd Opposite Party went to the office to receive the order copy and the same was not ready and it was searched in all the sections and finally on his Complaint the Registrar ordered to produce the bundle and after bundle was taken up, it was informed for administrative reason the main writ appeal was numbered by the Registry as W.A.No.1149/2011. However the Registry has not returned the copy application for non mentioning of the writ number and after knowing the same the 1^st Opposite Party applied for another certified copy on 26.11.2012 and the copy was made ready on 03.12.2012 and handed over the copy to the Complainant on the same day. Then the Complainant asked the Opposite Parties to file a review petition belatedly and the same was refused by them.  The Complainant contacted the Supreme Court advocate is false and that advocate never give opinion without verifying the bundle. The other two matters listed before the Deputy Register for sending notices and then before the Hon’ble Judges. The notice was sent more than 3 times.  On 15.07.2010 the Complainant instructed the Opposite Parties not to bring the other two cases in the same bench and after change of bench it can be brought before the other  bench.   The Opposite Parties filed the copy application in time and hence they have not committed any Deficiency in Service and therefore pray to dismiss the Complaint.

 

8. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

9. POINT NO :1

          It is an admitted case that the Complainant engaged the services of the Opposite Parties to file 3 writ appeals against the managements of Vaaranthara Rani, Thina Thanthi and Rani comics  with a delay of 286 days and in respect of Vaaranthara Rani the number assigned  in the appeal is   W.A.S.R.No.23665 of 2010 in M.P.No.1 of 2010  listed and came  up for hearing before the first bench on 28.04.2010 as per Ex.B4  for the first time and  the Hon’ble Court ordered  private notice and after service of notice the management appeared and filed their counter in the condone delay petition (M.P.No.1/2010) listed  on 15.07.2011 and after hearing the Hon’ble first bench dismissed the case in the admission stage itself.

          10. The Complainant himself admitted in the Complaint that on the day of dismissal the 1^st Opposite Party informed him over phone that he had applied for the copy of the dismissal order. The Opposite Parties also stated that they have applied copy application on the date of dismissal. Therefore, it is admitted facts of both the parties are that the Opposite Parties have applied for the certified copy of the dismissal order in the writ appeal in respect of Vaaranthara Rani. In respect of the writ appeal filed against Vaaranthara Rani is that the dismissal order has not been obtained by the Opposite Parties  even after lapse of 1 ½ year and after that  the Complainant pursued in the registry of the High Court and after taking out the copy application, it is noticed that the Opposite Parties have not even written the W.A.No.1149/2011 and that was the reason the copy application was not taken up and again another copy application was filed and he got the order copy and again the Opposite Parties refused to file to review the order and further the Complainant approached to file S.L.P, the lawyer informed him that there is a huge delay and same could not be done and therefore for their act he lost the right of filing appeal due to delay in getting the certified copy of the order.

          11. Admittedly on the date of dismissal the Opposite Parties filed copy application in the W.A.S.R.No.23665 of 2010 in M.P.No.1 of 2010, since the writ appeal number was not assigned on the date of the order. Therefore, on the date of copy application as per the case records number the Opposite Parties have rightly applied for the copy of the order and the subsequently given writ appeal number was not  written in the copy application cannot be considered as a deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties. If there is any defect in the copy application, the office ought to have returned the same for Compliance. The facts remains the copy application was not returned and after 1 ½ year the Opposite Parties and the Complainant approached the registry and the copy application was taken up. Then another copy application was applied on 26.11.2012 and the copy was received on 03.12.2012 and handed over to the Complainant. As the copy application was not returned and the Opposite Parties have not written the writ appeal number cannot be considered as their deficiencies. Further, the delay of 1 ½ year is only due to the administrative reasons in the office and that cannot be considered as deficiencies on the part of the Opposite Parties.

          12. In respect of Thina Thanthi and Rani Comics the writ appeal are pending before the High Court. The Complainant alleged deficiencies against the Opposite Parties in respect of these two appeals are that the Opposite Parties did not pursue the cases and numbered it and obtained orders and thereby committed Deficiency in Service. In both the appeals, delay petitions are pending. The writ appeal in respect of Thina Thanthi was listed on 08.11.2012 as per Ex.B7 and it was again listed on 25.07.2013 as per Ex.B9 and again it was listed before the Deputy Registrar on 27.11.2013 as per Ex.B10 for service.  Even after dismissal W.A.No.1149/2011, the above Ex.B7, Ex.B9 and Ex.B10 shows that the Opposite Parties are taking steps in the other appeal also. As contended by the Opposite Parties since the service has not been completed they were unable to bring the appeals for admission. Thereafter the Complainant sent Ex.B11 notice dated 06.11.2013 to the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties gave reply Ex.B12 to the Complainant and again the Complainant gave Ex.B13 counter reply to the Opposite Parties and thereafter Ex.B14 rejoinder by the Opposite Parties. After that the Opposite Parties sent the case with change of vakalat with Ex.B15 letter dated 17.12.2013 to the Complainant. Therefore as discussed above the Opposite Parties diligently prosecuted the other two appeals also and therefore they have not committed any Deficiency in Service in this regard also. 

13.  POINT NO :2

          Since, it is held above that the Opposite Parties have not  committed Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 26^th   day of May 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                     State Gov. reference order                

Ex.A2 dated NIL                     State Got. Reference order

Ex.A3 dated NIL                     W.P.No.22428 Computating Rs.5,19,513.50     

Ex.A4 dated NIL                     W.P.No.22429 Computating Rs.7,07,953.21     

Ex.A5 dated NIL                     W.P.No.22430 computating Rs.4,35,217.74

Ex.A6 dated NIL                     Complainant’s legal Notice dt. 06,11,2013

Ex.A7 dated NIL                     Opposite Parties reply dt.07.11.2013

Ex.A8  dated NIL                    Complainant’s letter dated 26.11.2013

Ex.A9 dated NIL                     Opposite Parties Notice dt 29.11.2013

Ex.A10 dated 28.04.2010                 M.P.No. 1 of 2010 in W.A.S.R.No. 23665/2010

                                               listed before Hon’ble First Bench

Ex.A11 dated  15.07.2011      M.P.No. 1  of 2010 in W.A.S.R.No.23665/2010

                                               listed to condone delay

Ex.A12 dated 14.03.2012                 Letter  of the Complainant to registrar Hon’ble

                                               Court

Ex.A13 dated 24.07.2012                 Letter of the Complainant to registrar Hon’ble

                                               Court

Ex.A14 dated 21.11.2012                 Complaint by Complainant to High Court

Ex.A15dated 03.12.2012                  Order on W.A.No.1149/2011 copy received       

Ex.A16 dated 07.02.1997                 Order of single judge in the same case

Ex.A17 dated 18.06.1997                 Order of the first bench in the same case

Ex.A18 dated 15.02.2013                 Front and back side cover of case file of

                                               W.A.No.1149/2011 received by Supreme court

                                               Lawyer

Ex.A19 dated 06.09.1995       State Gov.reference order for “Rani weekly”

 

Ex.A20 dated 03.08.2011                 Order policy received by Rani weekly lawyer

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

Ex.B1 dated 14.12.2009                   W.A draft copy prepared by Mr.Ramamoorthy and

                                               another Advocate

Ex.B2 dated 30.01.2010                   Dishonoured cheque of the Complainant

Ex.B3 dated 11.03.2010                   Affidavit and petition of condone delay petition. In

                                               W.A.SR.No 23665 of 2010

Ex.B4 dated 28.04.2010                   Hon’ble Chief Justice Court cause list

Ex.B5 dated 05.07.2010                   Counter filed in MP.No.1 of 2010 in WA.SR.NO.

                                               23665 of 2010

 

Ex.B6 dated 15.07.2011                   Case listed before Hon’ble Chief Justice Bench

Ex.B7 dated 08.11.2012                   MP.NO.1 of 2010 in WA.SR.NO. 23721 of 2010

                                               posted before Registrar Court

Ex.B8 dated 03.12.2012                   Order copy of Hon’ble Chief Justice

Ex.B9 dated 25.07.2013                   MP.No.1 of 2010 in WA.SR.NO.23721 of 2010

                                               posted before Hon’ble Mr.Justice J.Jayachandran

                                               Bench

Ex.B10 dated 27.11.2013                 Complainant’s case listed before D.R.Court

Ex.B11 dated 06.11.2013                 Notice issued with untenable words by

                                               Complainant to Opposite Parties

Ex.B12 dated 07.11.2013                 Reply notice given by Opposite Parties

Ex.B13 dated 26.11.2013                 Counter to reply notice of the Complainant

Ex.B14 dated 29.11.2013                 Rejoinder to counter notice

Ex.B15 dated 17.12.2013                 Letter with bundles sent to Complainant

Ex.B16 dated 04.06.2014                 First Bench cause list showing Writ Appal

                                               No.486/2014

Ex.B17 dated 09.06.2014                 Cause List of WA No.486/2014 listed for

                                               Judgment

Ex.B18 dated 09.06.2014                 W.A.No.486/2014 dismissed by Acting Chief

                                                Justice Bench

 

         

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT