KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL NOS:195/09 & 202/2009 COMMON JUDGMENT DATED: 15..06..2010 PRESENT: SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER APPEAL NO:195/2009 Muktha.N, Koyikkalethu, Maruthoorkulangara (S), : APPELLANT Alumkadavu.P.O, Karunagappally, Kollam. Vs. R.Sathish Kumar, S/o N.Ramakrishna Pillai, Advocate, ‘Sree Rohin’, : RESPONDENT Chittayam, Thevally.P.O, Kollam-9. (By Adv:Sri.Thampi.V.S) APPEAL NO:202/2009 R.Sathish Kumar, S/o N.Ramakrishna Pillai, Advocate, ‘Sree Rohin’, : APPELLANT Chittayam, Thevally.P.O, Kollam-9. (By Adv:Sri.Thampi.V.S) Vs. Muktha.N, Koyikkalethu, Maruthoorkulangara (S), : RESPONDENT Alumkadavu.P.O, Karunagappally, Kollam. COMMON JUDGMENT SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Both the above appeals are filed by the complainant and the opposite party respectively and the same are preferred from the order dated:28/2/2009 in CC.127/06 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. By the impugned order the opposite party is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost within one month from the date of receipt of the order. The complainant is aggrieved by the low amount of compensation ordered by the Forum below and the opposite party is aggrieved by the order directing him to pay the above said amounts. 2. The complaint in brief is that the complainant has entrusted to file her Family Court case for divorce to the opposite party Advocate on 18/6/2005 on payment of Rs.10,000/- as advocate fee. It is her case that the opposite party has filed the (OP.272/05) before the Family Court without disclosing many of the facts narrated to him by the complainant and that the case was not conducted properly before the Family Court. It is also her case that proper petitions were not filed by the opposite party and that the age and qualification of the complainant were furnished incorrectly and that on 13/3/2006 the court ordered cost of Rs.200/- to the complainant for not filing the objection to the OP filed by the complainant’s husband. It is her further case that the opposite party demanded more fees and that he relinquished the vakalath without filing the objection and the non filing of the objection to OP.264/05 and necessary petitions in OP.272/05 affected complainant’s case adversely. Alleging professional negligence the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite party to pay her a sum of Rs.10.lakhs as compensation and cost of the proceedings. 3. On getting notice from the Forum, the opposite parties filed version contending that the complainant was introduced to him by the opposite party’s father in law and that he had filed the OP as requested by the complainant by accepting a fee of Rs.2500/- only. It was submitted by him that the opposite party had revealed to the complainant that he was regularly practicing in the High Court of Kerala and would be present at Kollam only on Saturdays and Sundays and that he could appear for the complainant’s case only at the evidence stage. It was also submitted that the objection to the petition filed by the complainant’s husband could not be filed as the complainant did not co-operate and that though he had intimated her to come and sign the objection on any Saturday or Sunday, the complaint did not turn up. It was the further case of the opposite party that he relinquished the vakalath because the complainant was not prepared to pay him the fee demanded by him and the complainant had no grievances against him till he relinquished the Vakalath. Submitting that nothing adversely had happened to the case filed by him for the complainant, the opposite party pleaded before the Forum that there was no deficiency of service on his part. 4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P65 on her side. On the opposite party’s side one witness was examined as DW1. The Forum below passed the impugned order on the finding that though the opposite party filed version he did not make any earnest attempt to prove what was stated in the version. 5. Heard the appellant who appeared in person in A.195/09 and counsel for the appellant who appeared in A.202/09. 6. On hearing the parties and also on perusing the records we find that the complainant’s case in short is that the opposite party did not take proper care and caution in conducting the case entrusted by her to the opposite party. The complainant has also alleged that her qualification, age etc were wrongly entered in the petition and the opposite party has colluded with the complainant’s husband in the conduct of the case. It is also found that the complainant has raised serious allegations against the opposite party in not filing the objection to the divorce petition filed by the complainant’s husband at the proper time and he had relinquished the vakalath at the stage of filing the objection. Thus the appellant/complainant in A.195/09 prayed for enhancement of the compensation already awarded by the Forum below. It is argued by her that considering the quantum of loss suffered by her the Forum ought to have awarded Rs.10.lakhs as compensation with appropriate amount for the cost of the proceedings. 7. On the other hand the opposite party/appellant in A.202/09 submitted that there was no misconduct from his side and that the complaint filed by the complainant before the Bar council of Kerala was dismissed in his favour. It is also his case that the said order could not be filed before the Forum as he received the order in the complaint before the Bar Council only late. It is also submitted by him that the complainant did not raise any allegations against him before relinquishing the vakalath and the present allegations are only to malign the repudiation of the opposite party/appellant. It is further argued by him that the non filing of the objection to the case filed by the complainant’s husband was due to the non co-operation of the complainant herself as she was not prepared to meet him on any Saturday or Sunday at his office at Kollam. More over he has submitted before us that no prejudice was caused to the complainant non filing the objection to the said OP filed by the complainant’s husband. He has also a case that no sufficient opportunity was given to him to adduce evidence in support of his pleadings. 8. On an entire appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the complainant’s case revolves around the fact that the opposite party was not diligent in conducting her case properly before the Family Court which amounts to deficiency of service. She has prayed for a compensation of Rs.10.lakhs apart from the cost of the proceedings. However of the case we find that the complainant has not raised any complaint before the relinquishment of the vakalath by the Advocate who is the opposite party. The complainant/appellant has also submitted before us that she has some more records to be filed in support of her case. Apart from the documents that were filed before the Forum. It is her case that the additional documents would prove her case that she has suffered great loss and endured mental agony and other losses. The learned counsel for the appellant in A.202/09 has also submitted before us that opposite party/appellant was not given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence before the Forum. It seems that the Forum below has passed the order on the presumption that as the complainant has adduced evidence and the opposite party did not make any earnest attempt to prove what was stated in the version, the complainant was entitled to get compensation. It is also observed that the complainant has not adduced sufficient evidence to prove the loss suffered by her. In the said facts and circumstances we find that this is a fit case to be remanded to the Forum below for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence in support of their rival contentions. The complainant/appellant claims that she is entitled to more amount as compensation and the opposite party/appellant would argue that the order of the Forum below is to be set aside. In the back drop of the above arguments and in the light of the fact that the parties have additional evidence in support of their case, the Forum below is directed to have a fresh approach in the matter and decide the case on merits on the basis of the evidence adduced by the respective parties. In the result both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. Thereby order dated:28/2/2009 in CC.127/06 passed by CDRF, Kollam is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Forum below for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence in respect of their respective pleadings. However the Forum below is also directed to dispose of the matter within 6 months from the date of receipt of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the Forum on 26/7/2010. The office of this Commission is directed to send the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum without fail. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER VL. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER | 
