Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/30/2014

K.Malairaja Alwin Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.Lawrence, Advocate - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

30 Aug 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 12.12.2013

Date of Reservation      : 02.08.2022

Date of Order               : 30.08.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                        THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                :  MEMBER  I 

                        THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,         : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 30/2014

TUESDAY, THE 30^th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

Mr. K. Malai Raja alias Alwin Raj,

S/o. Kani Nadar,

Opposite Government Hospital,

No.2/366-A, Periar Nagar,

Senthurai Post,

Ariyalur District.                                                                                                                               ... Complainant           

 

..Vs..

R.Lawrence,

Advocate,

469, Fifth Floor,

New Additional Law Chambers,

High Court Complex,

Chennai – 600104.                                                                                                                               ...  Opposite Party

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : Party in Person

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : M/s. S. Jegadeeshwaran

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to repay a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- for the mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.16,000/- towards Customer subscription along with total cost of Rs.3,00,000/- towards travelling expenses incurred by the Complainant.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant had a dispute with the Revenue Authorities in respect of Punja Survey Patta and Northem Survey Patta. On 27.07.2012 Sendurai Revenue Tahsildar along with 100 members had demolished part of his furniture shop and the entrance of the Church. The Complainant decided to initiate legal action in the High Court and approached the Opposite Party to file the Writ Petition against the Revenue Authorities, who assured to obtain stay order in 8 days and compensation for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-. The Complainant had given a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the Opposite Party on 01.08.2013 and the balance of Rs.2000/- after obtaining stay order. The Opposite Party had sent a notice to the Revenue Authorities. He had filed a Writ Petition before the High Court which was retuned several times. The Opposite Party has not obtained stay order has promised by him. The Writ Petition numbered as W.P No.23105/2012 came up for admission on 31.08.2012 and stay order was obtained by the Opposite Party. On that day Rs.2000/- was given to the Opposite Party. Even after 5 months the Opposite Party has failed to obtain compensation. On 25.2014 when he approached the writ section, the Complainant was informed that the case has been dismissed for default for non appearance. The Complainant was shocked to see the order. The Opposite Party has conspired with the Revenue Officials, obtained a huge amount and failed to appear before the High Court which resulted in dismissal of the Writ Petition on 24.07.2013. The Opposite Party had committed fraud and criminal breach of trust by failing to get compensation from the Revenuve Authorities and on 08.10.2013 the Opposite Party had withdrawn in his case W.P No.23105/2012 without his permission which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

The Complainant approached the Opposite Party during August 2012 in connection with a land dispute. The Complainant had requested the Opposite Party to file a Writ Petition in the High court to prevent demolition of his House and Church built by him. The Opposite Party filed a Writ Petition No.23105 of 2012 and obtained statusquo on 27.08.2012. By virtue of the order of the Hon’ble High Court, demolition of the house of the Complainant was prevented. The allegation of making promises of compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- from Revenue Authorities was denied. The Opposite Party charged only Rs.10,000/- for filing Writ Petition and has not received any further amount from the Complainant. Even on the issue of dismissal of Writ Petition for non representation the Writ Petition was restored back and final orders were passed by the Hon’ble High Court on 08.10.2013 granting liberty to pursue his reliefs before alternative Forum. The properties seized by the Revenue Authorities were also ordered to be returned to the Complainant. The Complainant had not suffered any loss on account of any deficiency of service. Both the remedies to restrain the authorities to demolish his house and to get back the goods forcefully taken by the authorities were granted. Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. The High Court Vakalath with some endorsement thereon is fabricated document. Inspite of best results obtained in favour of the Complainant he has filed a baseless complaint against the Opposite Party causing damage to his reputation. Hence this complaint is to be dismissed. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.    The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-23 were marked. The Opposite Party submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Party, documents Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-8  were marked.   

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

The contention of the Complainant was that he had approached the Opposite Party to file a Writ Petition against the Revenue Authorities, who had demolished his shop and the entrance of Church. The Opposite Party had assured of getting stay order and compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-. But even after receiving Rs.16,000/- the Opposite Party failed in his duty of getting appropriate reliefs to the Complainant. The Opposite party contended that the Complainant had approached him in August 2012, in connection with a land dispute on which he had claimed to built a house and church for conducting prayer meetings. The Complainant had alleged that the Tahsildar of Ariyalur had taken steps to demolish the house and church of the Complainant and hence to file a Writ Petition in the High Court, Madras. The Opposite Party had charged a fee of Rs.10,000/- to file a Writ Petition in the High Court, which was paid by the Complainant and the Opposite Party had issued a receipt for the said amount. The Opposite Party had filed Writ Petition on behalf of the Complainant in W.P.No.23105/2012 dated 02.08.2012, along with a Miscellaneous Petition seeking ad interim injunction restraining the Tahsildar, Senthurai Taluk, Ariyalur District from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property  without following due process of law pending disposal of the Writ Petition as found in Ex.B-1. As per Ex.B-2, the said W.P.NO. 23105/2012 came up for admission,upon perusing the petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of the Opposite party  who was the counsel for the Complainant, the Hon’ble High Court, Madras on 27.08.2012 has made the following order. “ Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Issue notice to the Respondent returnable by four weeks.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that already the structure and wall to the extent of 200 sq.feet have been demolished and therefore, now atleast “status quo” may be maintained, so that future demolition may not be made.

As requested, status quo, as exists today, shall be maintained.”

The Complainant had contended that as per Ex.A-1, the Opposite Party had agreed to get stay order in 8 days and a compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- in W.P.No.23105 of 2012 for which the Complainant had to pay to Rs.10,000/- on that day i.e., 01.08.2012 and Rs.2,000/- at the time of granting stay. It was also contended that in total a sum of Rs.16,000/- was received by the Opposite Party, the receipt was at the back side of Ex.A-1. When the Opposite Party had refused of executing such agreement and  making such assurances of obtaining stay and compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-, the Complainant had submitted when the Opposite party had received 10,000/- as advance only for getting stay order and compensation, he cannot go bare handed when even in a provisional store, when they are unable to give a balance of 50p they give a sweet, but in advocate office the client return bare handed after paying  advance amount of Rs.10,000/-, which itself show that the Opposite Party had committed professional misconduct. The alleged Agreement is written on a vakalath by striking out the content of the printed matters by the Complainant to secure a stay order in 8 days and get a compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- from the Revenue authorities, the execution of which is denied by the Opposite party and contends that his signature has been fabricated and forged in that document.

The Opposite Party relied on the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in III(2013) CPJ 114 (NC) wherein it was held that “In the case in question, if the existence of agreement is denied, it becomes a case for filing civil suit for specific performance between the parties. The said agreement is not a registered document and moreover the money supposed to have been given by the complainant to the other party has been stated to be given in cash only. In such a situation, both the parties shall have to lead evidence before a Court of competent jurisdiction, which could adjudicate upon the issue whether the agreement is a genuine document of not”. In the present case the alleged Agreement is not a registered one, money given by the Complainant to the Opposite is by way of cash and the validity of such agreements are  to be decided only by a civil court and not by this Commission where summary procedure is followed in deciding cases.

The Opposite Party had placed reliance on the Order of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in F.A.No.472 of 2008 reported in II(2011) CPJ 573, where the defending lawyer in a suit acted without instructions and conceded for allowing application for appointment of guardian, it was held that Opposite Party appointed to defend case cannot be held responsible unless acted against the interest of clients by sailing with other party, which case is also applicable to the present case at hand.

Insofar as the Opposite Party had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.23105/2012 before Hon’ble High Court, Madras and had also obtained interim order in favour of the Complainant. Subsequently the Opposite Party had filed another Miscellaneous Petition M.P.No.2 of 2012 in the said Writ Petition, for a direction to the Tahsildar to return the articles and for the loss worth about Rs.5,50,000/- which includes the destruction of the building. In the meanwhile the Complainant had approached the Information Centre of the High Court, Madras and obtained the status of the Writ Petition as found in Ex.A-13 series. The Complainant had submitted that the counter filed by the Tahsildar in the Writ Petition was concealed by the Opposite Party and given belatedly to him. The Complainant further submitted that the Opposite Party had obtained money from Tahsildar and failed to appear before the Hon’ble High Court, Madras on 25.06.2013, 11.07.2013 and 23.07.2013 and hence the Writ Petition was dismissed for default on 24.07.2013. However, it could be seen from Ex.B-8, the Opposite Party had filed Miscellaneous Petition M.P.No.1/2013 to set aside the exparte order dated and to restore the Writ Petition, which was dismissed for default and the said M.P. was allowed on 27.08.2013 restoring the Writ Petition to file. On 08.10.2013, final orders came to be passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Madras in W.P.No.23105/2012, which is as follows:

“Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has made an endorsement in the Petition indicating that he may be permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition.

In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for Petitioner, the Petitioner is permitted to withdraw this Writ Petition and accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs, However, liberty is reserved to the Petitioner to take recourse to alternative forum as available under provisions of law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Petitioner may raise all the points before the Appellate Authority.

In so far as the application for release of goods taken by the authorities is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that an application has been made. The Respondent authority, by its affidavit dated 17.9.2012, has clearly  stated that the goods taken by the authorities are kept with the office of the Respondent and whenever the Petitioner approaches the Respondent to return back the goods, the same will be done.

In view of the aforestated statement, if the representation of the Petitioner is pending, the authorities may return the goods after making proper inventory of goods, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, Connected MPs are closed”.

The contention of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party had withdrawn the Writ Petition without his consent in collusion with Tahsildar which amounts to criminal breach of trust and that he had lost opportunity of filing Appeal against the order passed in the Writ Petition as the same was withdrawn and hence committed deficiency of service which had to be compensated.

Hence from the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party had filed W.P.No.23105/2012  before the Hon’ble High Court, Madras on behalf of the Complainant and had also obtained interim order in favour the Complainant. Thereafter the Writ Petition which was dismissed for default on 24.07.2013  has been restored to file by the Hon’ble High Court, Madras in  M.P.No.1/2013 by its Order dated on 27.08.2013. Though the Opposite party had withdrawn the Writ Petition as could be seen from the Order dated 08.10.2013 passed by the Hon’ble High Court, the Opposite Party had secured the interest of the Complainant with liberty to take alternative remedy before Appellate Authority and had secured order for return of goods. The Opposite Party had acted and represented the cause of his client, the Complainant, in a prudent manner in the interest of the Complainant and had not committed deficiency of service. The language used by the Complainant in his Proof Affidavit against the Opposite Party is derogatory and abusive which needs to be condemned. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2 and 3:-

We have discussed and decided that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.  Hence, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as against the Opposite Party.   Accordingly, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 30^th of August 2022.  

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	01.08.2012 08.10.2013	Receipt of fees by R.Lawrence, written in, vakalath
Ex.A2	23.08.2012	Petition in W.P. 23105/12
Ex.A3	31.08.2012	Copy of stay order
Ex.A4	24.07.2013	Order of dismissal dated 01.10.2013
Ex.A5	02.10.2013	Notice
Ex.A6	04.10.2013	Original acceptance card
Ex.A7	08.10.2013	Copy of order dated 06.11.2013
Ex.A8	03.08.2012 05.08.2012	Type set in MP.No.1 in writ petition dated 10.08.2012-13.08.2012-15.08.2012-18.08.2012-20.08.2012-22.08.2012
Ex.A9	06.01.2012	Copy of order passed by DCDRC – paper news
Ex.A10	19.10.2012	List of documents filed in petition seeking compensation – containing 68 pages
Ex.A11	30.01.2013	List of documents in writ petition claiming compensation
Ex.A12	27.07.2012	List of shortage of materials issued by Tahsildar
Ex.A13	19.10.2012	Receipt for Rs.5 issued by information centre dated 21.01.2013-30.01.2013-07.03.2013-21.06.2013-24.07.2013-25.09.2013-21.10.2013
Ex.A14	20.06.2013	Counter of Tahsildar received by the Complainant on 17.09.2012 along with list of documents containing 39 pages filed reply statement in Sr.No.71980
Ex.A15	05.02.2014	Appeal dismissal order dated 24.07.2013, dismissal order 08.10.2013 order of withdrawal made by R.Lawrence in tamil version, WA.92/2014 order copy
Ex.A16	23.03.2014	Complaint given to Police department, Chennai-1
Ex.A17	23.08.2012	Copy of letter sent to High Court Registrar
Ex.A18	30.01.2013	Proof affidavit for compensation, Petition, Batta Form, MP-2
Ex.A19	25.06.2013	Reply statement filed to the counter filed by the Tahsildar
Ex.A20	05.07.2013	Corrected reply statement
Ex.A21	24.07.2013	Letter issued to Tahsildar on dismissal order passed
Ex.A22	24.07.2013	Petition for reopen the dismissal order
Ex.A23	07.10.2014	Copy of the Writ petition in High Court

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

Ex.B1	02.08.2012	Copy of affidavit of Malairaja Complainant in writ petition No.23105/2012
Ex.B2	27.08.2012	Copy of orders of the High Court in MP.No.1/2012 in W.P.No.23105/2012
Ex.B3	19.10.2012	MP.No.2/2012 in Writ Petition No.23105/2012 with affidavit of Maliaraja, complainant
Ex.B4	08.10.2013	Final orders of the High Court in Writ Petition No.23105/2012
Ex.B5	17.03.2014	Receipt with complaint to B-4: Police Station Against complainant for committing forgery
Ex.B6	07.04.2014	Legal Notice to Malairaja for making Defamatory Remarks against Opposite Party
Ex.B7	24.06.2013	24.06.2013/10.07.2013/22.07.2013 Medical Certificates of Opposite Party.
Ex.B8	-	Order copy of High Court of Judicature at Madras

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT