DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.

PRESENT: - Sri C.Thyagaraja Naidu, B.Sc., B.L., President                       

Smt.S.Lalitha, M.A., M.L., Lady Member,

 

Between:

 

 

 

Vs.

 

 

This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri K.L.N.Prasad, Advocate for the complainants and Sri M.Varadaraju, advocate for the opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:

 

1. Smt.S.Lalitha, Lady Member:- This complaint has been filed by the complainants under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party to direct them to return the original petition schedule mentioned documents P1 to P8 and if he fails to return the same grant compensation and costs of the complaint.

2.         The brief facts of the complaint are that the 1^st complainant is mother and 2^nd complainant is brother of the opposite party. The complainants alleging that the opposite party is advocate for the settlement of land disputes i.e. seeking grant of Ryotwari patta before the Settlement Officer, Nellore while the husband of 1^st complainant and father of the 2^nd complainant N.C.Rajagopal was alive. The complainants alleged that the advocate N.C.Sampth Kumar took all the original documents mentioned in the schedule and all the relevant documents, were submitted in S.R.No.86 & 88/15(1)/81-ATP dt.13-04-1982 while the case was filed in the land settlement. After the settlement, he has taken back all the documents (P1 to P8), which were pertaining to S.R.No.86 & 88/15(1)/81-ATP dt.13-04-1982 by endorsing as Sri N.C.Sampath Kumar, advocate on 30-06-1986 itself. The complainants came to know about this case on 28-08-2008 when they applied before the District Revenue Officer, Anantapur for return of the original documents of P1 to P8 in S.R.No.86 & 88/15(1)/81-ATP dt.13-04-1982. The District Revenue Officer, Anantapur replied that the documents in S.R.No.86 & 88/15(1)/81-ATP dt.13-04-1982 were already taken back by the opposite             party-advocate on 30-06-1986. from the Settlement Officer Court, Nellore and also sent a Xerox copy of acknowledgement given by the opposite party as advocate for the complainants. The complainants alleged that those documents were not handed over to them by the opposite party till this day. They were kept in darkness after receiving the said endorsement. The complainants gave legal notice to the opposite party to hand over the said documents. As there was no reply from the opposite party, the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum.

3.         The opposite party submits in his counter that the complaint is not maintainable to decide the preliminary issues.   He alleges that a family feud was unnecessarily projected by the 2^nd complainant and the case is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P.,Hyderabad in A.S.No.512/2003 and expedite the appeal enquiry projecting the 1^st complainant to gain sympathy. The opposite party submits that the family members are jealousy of his success, hence after 22 years of the closed case, now they are lodging complaint without placing the actual facts. The opposite party further submits that the reply notice was not submitted before the Forum earlier. The 2^nd complainant colluded with the sisters has destroyed family fabric, peace just to make money at the cost of the reputation of the family cherished over a period of 150 years. The opposite party further submits that the preliminary issues as to whether this Forum could exercise any jurisdiction on the complaint of the complainants against the opposite party has to be decided as preliminary issue as there are no allegations to bring the case under Consumer dispute or as deficiency of service. The opposite party submits that the complaint is barred by limitation.

4.         Now the point for consideration is:-

 

5.       Heard both sides.

 

6. POINT:- There is no dispute regarding the opposite party acted as advocate in settling the family disputes and getting patta for their ancestral properties. Here the Forum does not want to go deep into the facts of the case as both parties argued on the preliminary point that whether the Consumer Protection Act applies or not, to that extent the opposite party submitted the decision of Supreme Court. The arguments of the complainants regarding this preliminary issue is that there were latches on the part of the opposite party in not returning the original records submitted in S.R.No.86 & 88/15(1)/81-ATP dt.13-04-1982 in the land settlement to the complainants and hence the opposite party negligent in the liability and responsibility. The Opposite Party as advocate, to the complainants in S.R.No.86 & 88/15(1)/81-ATP dt.13-04-1982 singed and obtained all original documents and did not hand over back to the complainants to this day is considered as latches on the part of the Opposite Party. The complainants explain the legal meaning as solidity etc.,

 

7.         The Opposite Party submits that the complaint is not in accordance with the rules of law of Consumer Protection Act. Nowhere in the complaint there is mentioning of deficiency of service and not mentioning of any clause in section 2  is alleged. The opposite party admits that he has collected the documents from District Revenue Officer and handed over to the mother i.e.,1^st complainant, but did not obtain the receipt from her as he is also a member of family  and felt it is  not necessary to obtain receipt. As per Supreme Court decision, the complaint is not maintainable as there was no allegation of deficiency of service or fault. The complainants submit that the word latches refers the deficiency of service. Legal meaning latches is “slackness, negligence in pursuing a legal remedy whereby the party forfeits the benefits upon the principle vigilantibus non dorminetibus jura subveniunt.” (Wharton’s Law Lexicon, 1976 Reprint Ed. at 562).

8.         The meaning of latches in dictionary “ latches is to lay hold whether if any hands or arms. “ As the opposite Party did not prove that all the documents were handed over to his mother in 1986 itself, as advocate signed and got all the originals from District Revenue Officer in 1986 itself and endorsed the same, but there is no acknowledgement with the Opposite Party that he has handed over those documents either in 1986 or till this date. 

 

9.         As per section 2(g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deficiency means               “ any fault, imperfection, short coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance, which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or other-wise in relation to any service. “

 

10.       The Opposite Party has not placed any documentary proof that he has delivered the document relating to S.R.No.86 & 88/15(1)/81-ATP dt.13-04-1982. Therefore, the plea of the contention of the Opposite Party that he had returned the documents to the complainants is not tenable. We are of the view that latches also construed deficiency of service. The contention of the Opposite Party is not accepted. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainants is maintainable. Accordingly this point is answered.

11.       In the result, the complaint filed by the complainants is maintainable.