Vishalakshi Murugappan, filed a consumer case on 05 Jun 2017 against Mrs.Gajalakshmi Rajendran in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is 50/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 13 Jul 2017.
Complaint presented on: 13.03.2014
Order pronounced on: 05.06.2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd 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 05th DAY OF JUNE 2017
C.C.NO.50/2014
Visalakshi Murugappan,
No.38, 43rd Street,
Thillai Ganga Nagar,
Chennai – 600 061.
….. Complainant
..Vs..
No.275, New Addl. Law Chambers,
High Court Complex,
Chennai – 600 104.
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 1st 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 1st Opposite Party is a practicing Advocate at Madras High Court and various Courts in Chennai. The 2nd Opposite Party is the Junior Advocate of 1st Opposite Party. The Complainant was introduced to the 1st 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 1st 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 1st Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party issued temporary receipt for the amount received. The 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st Opposite Party engaged in a rally with our common friend on 06.01.2014. On 08.01.2014 the 2nd 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 1st Opposite Party shows that she is in collusion with her husband and his counsel. Then the Complainant contacted Mr.Umashankar, he also advised the 1st Opposite Party and even after that the 1st Opposite Party had not done anything to the Complainant’s case.
4. Therefore, the Opposite Party have committed the following deficiencies are that the 1st 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 1st 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 1st Opposite Party and also compensation for mental agony and expenses with cost of the Complaint.
5. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE 1st OPPOSITE PARTY ADOPTED BY THE 2nd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
The 1st 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 1st Opposite Party, she paid the fees of Rs.25,000/- and receipt was given by the 2nd 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st Opposite Party introduced the Complainant to the 1st Opposite Party and he also requested the 1st 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 1st 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 1st Opposite Party and on receiving the said amount the Junior advocate of the 1st Opposite Party who is the 2nd Opposite Party herein issued receipt for the same.
10. The case of the Complainant is that the 1st 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 1st 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 1st Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service.
11. The 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st Opposite Party. Therefore, the contention of the 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service in rendering service to the Complainant. There is no relief sought against the 2nd Opposite Party.
14. .POINT :2
Since the 1st 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 05th day of June 2017.
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 dated NIL The visiting card to the 1st 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 2nd Opposite
Party, Junior Advocate to 1st 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
1st 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 1st 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
1st Opposite Party
Ex.A15 dated 06.02.2014 E-mail reply from Mr.Umashankar, IAS, with
copy to 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A16 dated 13.02.2014 E-mail sent to Mr.Umashankar, IAS, with copy to
1st 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 1st Opposite Party with copy to
Mr.Umashankar, IAS
Ex.A19 dated 20.02.2014 E-mail reply from Mr.Umashankar, IAS, with
copy to 1st 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 |
| ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.