SRI. K.ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)<br /> <br /> Smt. K.P. Rajeswari, the complainant has filed this complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of Sri. R. Krishna Raj, Advocate. The brief facts of the contentions of the complainant is as follows:- On 12-5-2002 the complainant had contacted the opposite party for filing a case before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, relating to her suspension from the post of Secretary of Milk Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd No. A 168(D) for financial irregularities. The opposite party has agreed to file the case before the High Court for getting a direction to reaudit the account, and as such the complainant had entrusted a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards fees. At that time the complainant had received notice from the said society stating that the internal enquiry was started in the society. When contacted the opposite party, has informed the complainant that the case is pending before the High Court. But as per demand of the complainant, the opposite party had entrusted the case file of WP(C) No. 19906/2004 of High Court to the complainant. After that the complainant had filed the complaint before this Forum seeking relief for not filing the case before the High Court in time by the opposite party.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. He entered appearance before this Forum and filed version.<br /> 3. In the version, the opposite party has stated that the complainant had contacted the opposite party for legal consultation through Adv. Ruby Raj and denied that the complainant has contacted the opposite party directly on 12-5-2002. The opposite party has not received the fee of Rs. 5,000/- and the complainant has entrusted the file and cash with the said Advocate Ruby Raj, Mavelikkara. Adv. Ruby Raj had contacted the opposite party in the month of October, 2003 and discussed the matter. As per request of the complainant, the opposite party has given all the help for filing the required representation to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies for re-audit. After that, the complainant had contacted the said Sri. Ruby Raj, Advocate, Mavelikkara and requested him to file the case before the High Court through the opposite party. Accordingly, the opposite party immediately on receipt of the case bundle from the said Adv. Ruby Raj filed the case before the Hon’ble High Court on 6-7-2004. The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to reject the plea of the complainant to re-audit and closed the petition giving liberty to the complainant to approach the statutory authorities against disciplinary proceedings by judgment dated 9-7-2004.<br /> 4. Considering the above contentions of the parties this Forum has raised the following issues:<br /> 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? And<br /> 2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation and costs?<br /> 5. Issues 1 and 2:- On the side of the complainant, she had produced 3 documents in evidence marked as Exts. A1 to A3. Ext. A1 is the letter of Advocate Sri. Ruby Raj addressed to the opposite party. Ext. A2 is the details of Phone Calls to the opposite party taken in plain paper. Ext. A3 also is the details of phone calls to the opposite party. On the side of the opposite party, he has produced 2 document marked as Exts. B1 and B2. Ext. B1 is the complaint dated 20-10-2004 of the complainant addressed to the Bar Counsel of Kerala against the opposite party and Ext. B2 is the copy of the order of WP(C) No. 19906/2004 (T) of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. On a perusal of the documents given in evidence, it can be seen that the contentions of the complainant are baseless and it cannot be taken into account, and it lacks bonafides. It can be seen that after discussion with the complainant and on receipt of the case bundle from Adv. Sri. Ruby Raj, the opposite party filed the case before the High Court on 6-7-2004 itself; and the Hon’ble High Court has closed the case by judgment dated 9-7-2004. There is no delay in filing the case before the High Court. So it cannot be say that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In this context the contentions raised against the opposite party will not be sustained. On a perusal of the complaint, affidavit and documents given in evidence and depositions of both parties and a detailed hearing, we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. The issues are found in favour of the opposite party. In the result, the complaint is to be dismissed. No orders as to costs.<br /> Complaint dismissed.<br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2008.<br /> <br /> Sd/- SRI.K. ANIRUDHAN:<br /> Sd/- SMT.SHAJITHA BEEVI:<br /> Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH:<br /> APPENDIX<br /> Evidence of the Complainant:<br /> PW1 - K.P. Rajeswary<br /> PW2 - Ruby Raj<br /> PW3 - Vijayakumaran Unnithan<br /> Ext. A1 - Letter from Ruby Raj<br /> Ext. A2 - Details of phone calls<br /> Ext. A3 - Details of phone calls<br /> <br /> Evidence of the opposite party:<br /> <br /> RW1 - R. Krishna Raj<br /> Ext. B1 - Complaint dtd 20-10-2004<br /> Ext. B2 - Copy of the order of W.P.(C) No. 19906/2004(T) of the Hon’ble High Court.<br /> <br /> // True Copy //<br /> By Order<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent <br /> To <br /> Complainant/Opposite Party/SF<br /> <br /> Typed by: Sh/-<br /> Compd by:<br /> <br />