(Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)
(1) This is an appeal pending in this Commission since 2004. It is an unattended by the appellant and the appellant has not bothered to take circulation for getting first order passed. Therefore, on 02/08/2011, this matter was placed before us for disposal. Intimation of that date was displayed on notice board and published on internet Board of the Commission. On 02/08/2011, on finding that appellant as well as the respondent are absent, we directed office to issue notice informing next date of hearing i.e. 23/09/2011 to both the parties. Accordingly, on 16/08/2011, office issued notices to the parties. On 23/09/2011 i.e. today, the appellant as well as the respondent are absent. Therefore, we are deciding the matter on merit. We perused the impugned order dated 24/07/2003 passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Forum in Consumer Complaint No.590/96. The complaint was filed by Ms.Vandana M. Thakkar against Shri O.R.Singh. In the complaint, she pleaded that she had engaged opponent, O.R.Singh as an advocate for lodging and conducting a criminal case No.166/94 filed by her against one Shir Anand P. Baddi and Shri Bherulal Bhandari before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s XIth Court at Kurla, Mumbai on a consolidated fee of `3,000/-. She paid `3,000/- to the opponent. The opponent accordingly drafted and filed the said complaint case on her behalf on 10/11/1994 and got process issued after complainant’s verification on 15/11/1994. The matter was made returnable on 06/01/1995. The opponent did not remain present on 06/01/1995 and on subsequent dates i.e. 21/04/1995, 28/07/1995 and 06/10/1995. He did not give any prior intimation about his absence. The complainant gave notice dated 03/1/1996. The opponent replied vide letter dated 15/01/1996 stating that she had not paid any fee to him in spite of several demands and she should pay the same and collect her papers back. The complainant thereafter filed consumer complaint against the opponent. The opponent filed written version and resisted the complaint. The complainant had agreed to pay `3,000/- upto issue of process in the matter, but she did not pay any fee in spite of demand. She had informed him that she would attend the dates and she would take his help at trial stage and would pay `100/- for each such hearing date. The opponent pleaded that he completed his work of filing and issue of process but the complainant did not turn up to pay his agreed fee. The opponent, therefore, requested that the complaint should be dismissed. On pursuing the documents and affidavits on record, the forum below observed that Add.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s XIth Court at Kurla after hearing the complainant was pleased to issue process on 15/11/1994. The complainant was present on subsequent dates. The complainant informed the court that she wanted to engage another advocate as she had discharged the opponent from the case. The court had recorded the said fact on the Roznama dtd.10/10/1997. Hence, the forum below held that there was no deficiency in the service on the part of the learned advocate in not appearing on her behalf in the Court of Add.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s XIth Court at Kurla. The forum below observed that the relations between the complainant and the opponent were strained from October 95 onwards. There is no documentary evidence to show that the complainant had engaged the opponent on a consolidated fee of `3,000/- and she had paid the same to him. The forum, therefore, held that the complaint was devoid of any substance and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order, the original complainant filed this appeal.
(2) On perusing the order, we are of the view that there is no substance in the appeal. The judgement rightly noted the appellant had not adduced any proof about paying `3,000/- as alleged by the complaint in her complaint. The forum below noted in its order that before Add.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s XIth Court at Kurla, the complainant made a statement that she wanted to change her advocate. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent and she had not proved that she had paid `3,000/- to the advocate as per her contention in the complaint. Therefore, we are of the view that dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum is just and proper and sustainable in law. Hence, the order.
ORDER
(1) Appeal stands dismissed.
(2) No order as to costs.
(3) Inform the parties, accordingly.
Pronounced on 23rd September, 2011.
