Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

50/2014

Vishalakshi Murugappan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mrs.Gajalakshmi Rajendran - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

05 Jun 2017

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  13.03.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  05.06.2017

 

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

 

MONDAY THE 05^th DAY OF JUNE 2017

 

C.C.NO.50/2014

 

 

 

Visalakshi Murugappan,

No.38, 43^rd  Street,

Thillai Ganga Nagar,

Chennai – 600 061.

 

                                                                             ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1. Mrs. Gajalakshmi Rajendran,

No.275, New Addl. Law Chambers,

High Court Complex,

Chennai – 600 104.

 

2. Miss.Chitra,

No.275, New Addl. Law Chambers,

High Court Complex,

Chennai – 600 104.

 

	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  : 18.03.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in person

Counsel for Opposite Parties                : M/s. Arumugam

 

 

O R D E R

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

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the 1^st Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.3,01,500/- towards fees received from her, compensation for mental agony and expenses with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st Opposite Party is a practicing Advocate at Madras High Court and various Courts in Chennai. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the Junior Advocate of 1^st Opposite Party. The Complainant was introduced to the 1^st Opposite Party that one of their common friend Mr.Umashankar IAS to deal with her family court cases. The Complainant handed over her bundles of family court case HMOP No.3312 of 2006 and its related petitions and with change of vakalat to the 1^st Opposite Party in  C.S.No.131/07 on the file of Hon’ble High Court  with a fees of Rs.25,000/-  on 11.09.2013 to the 1^st Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party  issued temporary receipt for the amount received. The 1^st Opposite Party received Rs.5,000/- for search of the High Court bundle on 04.12.2013 and also received Rs.1,000/- on 17.12.2013 to file  transfer petition in the family court. The 1^st Opposite Party said that unless the Complainant pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- she will not file the change of vakalat in the High Court. Hence, the Complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 18.12.2013 and paid to the 1^st Opposite Party to file  change of vakalat.

          2. After receipt of the aforesaid amounts, the Opposite Parties have not followed her cases and on the other hand they were colluding with the Complainant’s husband who is the other party in all the cases. Then she herself filed transfer petition in the family court on 17.12.2013 and that was returned on 21.12.2013 and the Opposite Parties never tried to represent the case. They did not allow the Complainant to attend the court. Further they did not attend the court during 05.01.2014 to 08.01.2014 and the 1^st Opposite Party engaged in a rally with our common friend on 06.01.2014. On 08.01.2014 the 2^nd Opposite Party said that she is not in robes and asked the Complainant to go to her chamber in order to not to attend her case. This Opposite Parties did not care to get certified copy of document which was filed on 11.12.2013.

          3. The first Opposite Party has not filed change of vakalat till 08.01.2014. Hence, the Complainant herself engaged another advocate Mr.Maruthachalamurthy and he has filed change of vakalat in CS.No.171/2007 and effective from 31.01.2014. The above attitude of the 1^st Opposite Party shows that she is in collusion with her husband and his counsel. Then the Complainant contacted Mr.Umashankar, he also advised the 1^st Opposite Party and even after that the 1^st Opposite Party had not done anything to the Complainant’s case.

          4. Therefore, the Opposite Party have  committed  the following deficiencies are that the 1^st Opposite Party did not file the change of vakalat before the Hon’ble High Court those she had handed over the same to her on 11.09.2013, the 1^st Opposite Party though received Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/-  she  did not search the bundle and also did not follow up the transfer petition  and also not obtained copy of documents by filing copy application and did not attend  High Court and Family Court cases properly and not filed affidavits in the Family Court and hence the Complainant filed this Complaint claiming the amount paid to the 1^st Opposite Party and also compensation for mental agony and expenses with cost of the Complaint.  

5. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY   ADOPTED BY THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st Opposite Party admits that Mr.Umashangar IAS only introduced the Complainant to her.  The Complainant pleaded with her to look after her family Court Divorce Case. Mr.Umashankar also requested her to do the needful to the Complainant. This Opposite Party undertook to assist her in HMOP No.3312/2006 and also M.P.No.902 in M.C.No.491/12 & I.A.No.2394/2010, 2735/2010, 3177/2010, 3176/2012, 276/2013, 277/2013, 1930/2013, 2102/2013 in H.M.O.P.No.3312/2006. The Complainant only seeing the prompt assistance rendered by the 1^st Opposite Party, she paid the fees of Rs.25,000/- and receipt was given by the 2^nd Opposite Party.

          6. The change of vakalat given by the Complainant to file in CS No.171/2007 is the vakalat given was the appellate vakalat and the same could not be filed for the suit. Hence the 1^st Opposite Party informed the Complainant to get the change of vakalat on the original side vakalat and however she did not give original side change of vakalat and hence the Opposite Parties could not file the change of vakalat given by the Complainant in the original side. More than 10 hearings the 1^st Opposite Party assisted the Complainant in the family court. Even the Complainant did not attend the hearings in the family court, this Opposite Party managed to get the date. Further the Complainant was not happy with her case pending in the First Additional Family Court and hence this Opposite Party helped her in filing transfer O.P.No. 1/2014 and got transfer to principle Judge Family Court.  This Opposite Party have not received the other amounts alleged by the Complainant in her Complaint and received only Rs.25,000/- admitted in this written version.

7. The Complainant earlier advocate Nithyanantha Egavathi  only gave the change of vakalat and he had filed CS.No.579/2012 before the Hon’ble High Court against 8 advocates and other parties claiming damages to a tune of Rs.30,00,000/- and the said plaint was rejected by the Hon’ble justice Vinoth Sharma by his order dated 30.01.2013. The Complainant had misled this Forum alleging that she had paid Rs.50,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- to this Opposite Party. The other averments made in the Complaint are denied. This Opposite Party have promptly rendered assistance to the Complainant and during her period no case was dismissed for default and decreed ex-parte against the Complainant. Therefore, this Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

8.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

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

9.POINT : 1

          The admitted facts are that one Mr.Umashankar IAS who is the common friend of the Complainant and the 1^st Opposite Party introduced the Complainant to the 1^st Opposite Party and he also requested the 1^st Opposite Party to take care of the Complainant’s cases  to help her and accordingly the Complainant also entrusted her Family Court Case H.M.O.P.No.3312/2006 which was filed by her husband for divorce and also other petitions M.P.No.902 in M.C.No.491/12 & I.A.No.2394/2010, 2735/2010, 3177/2010, 3176/2012, 276/2013, 277/2013, 1930/2013, 2102/2013 in H.M.O.P.No.3312/2006 to the 1^st Opposite Party and the Complainant also entrusted a change of vakalat to file before the Hon’ble Court in CS.No.171/2007 and she had also paid a sum of Rs.25000/- towards fees to the 1^st Opposite Party and on receiving the said amount the Junior advocate of the 1^st Opposite Party who is the 2^nd Opposite Party herein issued receipt for the same.

          10. The case of the Complainant is that the  1^st Opposite Party had not filed the change of vakalat in CS.No.171/2007 before the Hon’ble High Court and when she questioned the same she wanted another sum of Rs.50,000/- to her and then only she will file the  change of vakalat in original side and therefore the Complainant borrowed another sum of Rs.25,000/- and paid to her on 18.12.2013 and she also paid a sum of Rs.500/- to search the case bundle in the High Court and also paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- on 17.12.2013 for filing expenses to transfer petition in the Family Court and however the 1^st  Opposite Party has not filed the change of vakalat and also not followed up the transfer application and did not get certified copy of documents by filing copy application and also not attended the Family Court and assisted her and therefore the 1^st  Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service.

          11. The 1^st  Opposite Party would contend that  she had attended the Family Court more than 10 hearings and she also assisted her in filing transfer O.P.No.1/2014 on the file of principle Family Court and assisted to get the transfer of the case H.M.O.P.3312/2009 from the file of First Additional Family Court to Principal Family Court  and further she had given change of vakalat only in the appeal vakalat and this Opposite Party informed the Complainant to get the change of vakalat in the original side vakalat and however she did not get such change  of vakalat and handed over to her and apart from that excepting Rs.25,000/- all other amounts have not been paid to her and therefore this Opposite Part has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

          12. The Complainant marked Ex.A2 copy of the change of vakalat given to the 1^st Opposite Party to be filed in CS.No.171/2007 which is in the form of the Appellate vakalat of the Hon’ble High Court. The CS.No.171/2007 is pending on the original side of the Hon’ble High Court. The original side has different type of vakalat than the appellate vakalat. The 1^st Opposite Party also insisted the Complainant to get the change of vakalat in the original side vakalat to file in the suit. However, there is no evidence on behalf of the Complainant that she had handed over the original side change of vakalat to the 1^st Opposite Party. Therefore, the contention of the 1^st Opposite Party that since the Complainant did not give the original side change of vakalat to her and hence she had not filed the same is accepted and in view of the same in this respect the 1^st Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service.

          13. The Opposite Parties admits that they have received only Rs.25,000/- towards fees from the Complainant and the other amount alleged in the Complaint was not paid to them by the Complainant. Excepting for payment of Rs.25,000/- no proof filed by the Complainant for other payments. The 1^st  Opposite Party pleaded in the written version that she had assisted the Complainant more than 10 hearings in the Family Court and also assisted her in filing transfer petition  No.1/2014  on the file of principal Judge, Family court for getting transfer of her case from the  file of first additional family court to principal Family Court. This fact was conveniently suppressed by the Complainant in her Complaint. She only stated in the Complaint that both the Opposite Parties even knowing that the transfer petition was returned, they never tried to represent the same and she was also not allowed to handle the case by the Opposite Parties. However, the facts remains the transfer application was allowed and the case was transferred from the First Additional to principal Family Court. The aforesaid facts establishes that the 1^st Opposite Party assisted in the Family Court case and also assisted her to file transfer O.P. and got transfer from first additional to principal Court and further excepting payment of Rs.25,000/- no other proof is available in this case and hence, we hold that the 1^st  Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service in rendering service to the Complainant. There is no relief sought against the 2^nd Opposite Party.

 14. .POINT :2    

Since the 1^st Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complainant 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 05^th day of June 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                     The visiting card to the 1^st Opposite Party

Ex.A2 dated 11.09.2013                   Change of Vakalat for CS171/2007 from Ma

                                                    Nithyananda Ekavathi

 

Ex.A3 dated 11.09.2013                   List of Documents handed over on 09.09.2013

 

 

Ex.A4 dated 11.09.2013                   Receipt for Rs.25,000/- given by 2^nd Opposite

                                                   Party, Junior Advocate to 1^st Opposite Party

 

Ex.A5 dated 05.01.2014                   Wall poster – 2 nos.

 

Ex.A6 dated 06.01.2014                   News paper clipping

 

Ex.A7 dated 09.01.2014                   E-mail sent to Mr.Umashankar, IAS

 

Ex.A8 dated 09.01.2014                   E-mail reply from Mr.Umashankar, IAS

 

Ex.A9 dated 11.01.2014                   E-mail reply from Mr.Umashankar, IAS

 

Ex.A10 dated 14.01.2014                 E-mail sent to Mr.Umashankar, IAS

 

Ex.A11 dated 16.01.2014                 E-mail sent to Mr.Umashankar, IAS, with copy to

                                                   1^st Opposite Party, including all emails from

                                                   09.01.2014 onwards

 

Ex.A12 dated 21.01.2014                 E-mail reply from Mr.Umashankar, IAS, with

                                                    copy to 1^st Opposite Party

 

Ex.A13 dated 05.02.2014                E-mail reply from Mr.Umashankar, IAS

 

Ex.A14 dated 06.02.2014                 E-mail sent to Mr.Umashankar, IAS, with copy to

                                                   1^st Opposite Party

 

Ex.A15 dated 06.02.2014                 E-mail reply from Mr.Umashankar, IAS, with

                                                   copy to 1^st Opposite Party

 

Ex.A16 dated 13.02.2014                 E-mail sent to Mr.Umashankar, IAS, with copy to

                                                   1^st Opposite Party

 

Ex.A17 dated 13.02.2014                 E-mail reply from Mr.Umashankar, IAS

 

Ex.A18 dated 20.02.2014                 E-mail sent to 1^st Opposite Party with copy to 

                                                   Mr.Umashankar, IAS

 

 

Ex.A19 dated 20.02.2014                 E-mail reply from Mr.Umashankar, IAS, with

                                                    copy to 1^st Opposite Party

 

Ex.A20 dated 31.01.2014                 Case status update for change of vakalath

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

Ex.B1 dated   NIL                             Affidavit, Petition & Order in Application

                                                    No.4988/2012 in CS.No.579/2012

                        

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT