Date of Filing:17.04.2009<br /> Date of Order: 18.11.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> COMPLAINT NO: 893 OF 2009<br /> <br /> V.D. Kandaswamy Mudaliar<br /> Adminrailty Square<br /> D 103, 6th Main, 13th Cross<br /> Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038 Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> K.N. Suresh<br /> Advocate, G 003<br /> Sri Ashram View Enclave<br /> No. 15/3, Kolimmi Siddanna Garden<br /> Ulsoor, Bangalore 560 008 Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant praying refund of Rs. 20,000/- from the opposite party.<br /> The facts of the case as stated by the complainant are as under:<br /> The complainant had proposed to purchase a house. The vendor had provided some documents. Since he did not know the formalities in purchasing the house, he contacted opposite party who being a professional by advocate for suggestion and assistance. Opposite party agreed to scrutiny the papers. Opposite party demanded Rs. 50,000/- as his fee and ultimately reduced fee to Rs. 25,000/- and the amount was paid through cheque dated 02.02.2008. Due to unavoidable circumstances vendor refused to sell the property. Complainant submitted that he approached the opposite party many times for getting back the amount paid by him by deducting nominal fee. Complainant made representation to bar council. The personal approaches and the letter of correspondences with the opposite party gone in vain. Therefore, the complainant approached this forum for redressal.<br /> 2. Notice issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in his appearance and defence version filed stating that complaint be dismissed in limine. Complainant has not approached with clean hands. Complainant does not disclose an iota of deficiency in service. Opposite party demanded receipt of Rs. 25,000/- towards professional fee. Complainant visited the opposite party over 100 times and opposite party has spent 150 hrs with the complainant. Complaint fails on the very fact that there is no deficiency of service. Therefore, the opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complaint is maintainable?<br /> 5. By going through the complaint allegations the complainant has not made any allegations of deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. It is admitted case of the complainant that he wanted to purchase a property at Bangalore and for that purpose for taking legal opinion and advice he approached opposite party who is an advocate and law practitioner and for getting legal advice and to scrutinize document papers he has paid Rs. 25,000/- as a professional fee. Since, the proposed vendor refused to sell the property the sale transaction could not be materialized. The complainant demanded refund of the professional fee paid to the opposite party. This kind of complaint is not maintainable before this fora. The complaint is not maintainable for seeking refund of fee paid to the opposite party. The complainant cannot convert this fora into civil court for seeking refund of the fee or any amount. The remedy open to complainant is to approach civil court. The present complaint is virtually a suit for recovery of money. This type of complaint is not maintainable in law before Consumer Forum. When the complainant has not pleaded or alleged any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party how can he maintain the complaint before this fora. One of the important ingredient or facts to be proved by any complainant before the consumer forum is the deficiency of service on the part of service provider. In the given case if there is no pleading and proof of deficiency of service the question of granting relief to the complainant does not arise. The present complaint filed by the complainant seeking refund of the amount is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br />