Date of Filing : 28.01.2016
Date of Disposal:18.06.2021
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED:18th JUNE 2021
PRESENT
HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH : PRESIDENT
Mr KRISHNAMURTHY B SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER
COMPLAINT No.42/2016
Mr.Ravi Narayanan
S/o T.M.Narayanan
No.3414, VHBCS
Girinagar 4th Phase
Hosakerehalli Cross
Bangalore-560 085 Complainant
(By Mrs.Vidya Selavmony)
-Versus-
Mr.B.C.Natesh
Residing at No.21, M-4
2nd Main, 2nd Cross
Sanjeevininagar
Mudalapalya
Saibabha Temple
Nagarbhavi Main Road
Bangalore-560 072 Opposite Party
-:O R D E R :-
Mr.KRISHNAMURTHY B SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This is a complaint filed under section 17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct OP to settle the amount taken from him to an extent of Rs.23,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of payment till realisation, secondly to award Rs.5 lakhs as damages for the mental agony and finally to award for litigation expenses.
2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant to decide this case, as could be found from complaint are stated:
OP is an Advocate professing law practice, as such, the complainant has sought his legal assistance in the matter of pending Criminal Case pending on the file of I ACMM, Bengaluru, since in the said case, he is an Accused in Crime No.21/2013. In this regard, he has paid amount as demanded by the OP from time to time for varieties of reasons, accordingly he has paid to an extent of Rs.23,50,000/-. The OP Advocate made deliberate attempt to part with such huge amount from him. He wrongfully deceived him, to make wrongful gain for him and to cause wrongful loss to him. OP received such huge amount on false promise that amount is required to get over from Crime No.21/2013 and other pending matters. In this regard, in order to mobilise such huge fund, he has sold all his belongings, however OP has failed to fulfil the promises made to him. In such circumstances, he has no option except to raise this complaint for return of Rs.23,50,000/- before the Commission.
3. Contrary to the above such complaint, OP put his appearance through learned counsel and resisted the case, submitting version. He denied all the allegations made in the complaint in so far as receipt of Rs.23,50,000/- said to have been made by the complainant to him with a promise to get over from Crime No.23/2013. However, he admits that complainant has engaged him and he has extended legal service, however, never received Rs.23,50,000/- or any amount as alleged in this complaint. He made all efforts to safe guard the interest of complainant as he was his client, when he was an Accused person in the crime case stated supra. The Complainant is making all frivolous claims and trying to damage his reputation by stating that he has made demand of money to bribe the Judge and concerned. The complainant has no credibility to raise such a huge amount, is hereby called upon to prove the allegations. The complainant has also initiated DCE No.21/2016 before the disciplinary committee of Karnataka State Bar Council. He has also filed a Criminal case with Vidhana Soudha Police Station in Crime No.57/2016 under IPC 420 and 406 which is pending on the file of VIII ACMM, Bengaluru. Thus, he sought for dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs, as he has made an attempt to assassinate his reputation and has caused him mental agony.
4. In view of rival contentions of complainant and OP, the Commission held enquiry by receiving affidavit evidence of complainant and documents Nos.1 to 3. On the contrary, OP placed his version and few documents. After closure of enquiry, Commission heard complainant in person and heard learned counsels on record.
5. Now, we have to examine whether complainant could able to show that he has paid an amount of Rs.23,50,000/- to OP from time on time to get over from the crime case mentioned in his complaint as alleged and to show deficiency in service on the part of OP in the said matter as an Advocate ?
6. In order to substantiate his complaint allegations, besides his affidavit evidence, has produced documents 1 to 3, of which one is Xerox copy of the letter addressed to OP narrating as to how he has paid Rs.23,50,000/- to him. This is all his narration in this letter. The next document would be copy of reply notice said to have been issued by OP wherein could see, the letter Head, said to have been the letter head of “B.C.Natesha and Associates, Advocates, just below this letter head, name, by registered post acknowledgement due dated 09.08...” But could not find the year and name of complainant, wherein could see, begin with notice sent by you dated 06.08.2014 was received by me.” In response to this letter, OP has categorically denied and stated, that such a reply notice as per Document No.2 was never issued by him and his categorical reply was letter head is created by complainant. In this regard we have to observe herein that this is a Xerox copy, wherein could see, by the end of notice, “ based on your request, I used to hand over all the case documents to you with NOC whenever you needed, but, I refused to refund Rs.23,50,000/- given by you.” Thus, this Paragraph mentioned in document No.2 suffice to hold letter head and its contents appears to be created one for the reasons best known to complainant, which has no legal sanctity. Further Document No.3 is a soft copy produced without there being production of the true text as contemplated under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. In view of such observation of the Commission these documents produced on behalf of the complainant did not make out payment of Rs.23,50,000/- to OP either for getting over from the crime case stated by him or for any other reasons. Further, the Complainant either from affidavit evidence or by documents miserably failed to prove his allegations made in the complaint, that in order to get over Crime No.21/2013 and pursuant to Criminal case on the file of ACMM, he was force to give such huge amount to OP to bribe various authorities including Judges/Court.
7. Further, it is appropriate also to make mention that Disciplinary Committee of Karnataka State Bar Council, Bengaluru, in DCE No.21/2016 on 19.03.2017 ordered to dismiss the complaint filed by Mr.Ravi Narayanan, who is none other Complainant herein, who had initiated disciplinary proceedings against Mr.B.C.Natesh, Advocate. In the said complaint, the complainant herein has made similar allegations against the OP. This order of the Bar Council is dated 19.03.2017. It is to be noted herein that the Complaint of complainant is received by this Commission on 21.08.2016. If we compare the contents of complaint and the complaint made before the Bar Council are found almost similar allegations. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council held the enquiry on the allegations as to refusal of the OP to return back the amount of Rs.23,50,000/-. The complainant alleged against the OP to grabbed money and failed to prosecute the case diligently, he gave false information about police, justice and public prosecutor with a view to grab money. The complainant further alleges that by misleading the public OP making false advertisement thereby attracting clients against the standards of professional conduct and ethics of Bar Council of India Rules. The OP has committed professional mis-conduct by continuously publishing his profile on various web-sites to attract client by giving different statement and information. The complainant says that he came to know OP was suspended from practices for one year by notification dated 26.11.2010 from Karnataka State Bar Council. Thus, on such allegations, the Disciplinary Committee formulated as many as 3 charges and enquired, thereby held complainant did not chose to lead any evidence except the complaint contents. He has failed to produce any of the materials to support his allegations before the Committee to show that OP has committed professional misconduct. Hence held complainant has failed to prove that OP has committed professional misconduct as alleged and failed to prove any of the charges framed against him. In such conclusion, held, there are no materials to hold that OP has committed professional misconduct, accordingly, dismissed the said complaint.
8. Thus, the above finding recorded by the Bar Council of Karnataka, in our view would be held relevant factor in this complaint enquiry, since the complainant miserably failed to establish his charges made against the OP as to his payment of Rs.23,50,000/- to him. Thus, with such view, we proceed to hold complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of OP. In such conclusion, Commission proceed to dismiss the Complaint with no order as to costs.
Lady Member Judicial Member President
*s
