1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he being aggrieved by the order dt.16.9.2004 in OJC No.8051.1994 of Hon’ble High Court, Odisha filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and engaged the OP.1 who is a practicing Advocate of Hon’ble Supreme Court and also paid Rs.10, 000/- on 03.1.2014 and also deposited Rs.5000/- in the SB A/c of OP.1 on 27.1.2014 through PNB, Jeypore Branch towards professional fees.  It is submitted that Civil Appeal No.14328/2005 was posted to 14.2.14 for hearing in Court No.4 but the said case was dismissed for non prosecution by the Advocate-OP.2 for the complainant.  Further the restoration petition dt.04.04.14 filed by the Ops was also dismissed by the said court.  On being asked the OP.2 requested the complainant to supply necessary documents but the Ops remained silent after receipt of documents as required by them.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to pay Rs.1.50 lacs for deficiency in service and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.

2.                     On being served the OP.1 filed its reply challenging the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain this case as cause of action arose at Delhi.  Denying receipt of Rs.10, 000/- from the complainant, the OP contended that the allegation of deposit of Rs.5000/- in the Account No.6769005119901 has no correlation with the OP as the said A/c number does not belong to him.  The OP contended that the complainant contacted him on 29.1.2014 to assist him in the case and the case was filed on 10.2.2014 and the Clerk of the Advocate informed the Advocate that the case is scheduled to be listed on 20.2.2014 and hence the Advocate on record was engaged in his personal work but on return when the Advocate checked the status, he came to know that the matter has been dismissed on 14.2.2014.  It is further contended that on the instruction of the complainant the OP on 19.2.2014 filed restoration petition and it was listed to 04.04.14.  In the meanwhile the Advocate fell ill and was under treatment at different hospitals and accordingly requested his colleagues to appear in the case listed on 04.04.14, who also appeared in the case but the Hon’ble Court declined the prayer.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.  The OP No.2 did not prefer to file counter in this case.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of their respective cases.  The OP.1 had sought permission of this Forum to exempt him from his personal appearance.  Heard from the complainant through its A/R and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, seeking the assistance of OP.1 at New Delhi by the complainant for filing of an SLP against the order of Hon’ble High Court, Odisha is an admitted fact.  The case of the complainant is that SLP No.14328/2005 was filed and posted on 14.2.2014 for hearing but it was dismissed for non prosecution by the Advocate of the complainant.  It is stated that the complainant has paid Rs.10, 000/- on 03.01.2014 and Rs.5000/- on 27.1.2014 to the OP.1 towards fees.

5.                     The OP.1 challenged the territorial jurisdiction and maintainability of this case before this Forum stating that the allegations of the complainant regarding payment of fees are false as he has not paid any fee to OP.1 at Delhi.  Regarding payment of Rs.5000/- to the SB A/c of the OP.1 through PNB, Jeypore, and the OP.1 stated that the a/c number mentioned by the complainant in which he sent Rs.5000/- does not belong to the OP.  While considering the allegation of payment of fee to the OP.1, it is seen that though the complainant has filed copy of bank slip for sending Rs.5000/- but failed to prove that the said account belongs to the OP.1.  Further the payment of fee at Delhi to OP.1 is not supported by any acknowledgement etc. Hence the allegations of payment of fees to OP.1 are bereft of any merit.  Further cause of action as ascertained has arisen at Delhi.  In absence of any payment from Odisha, this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this case.

6.                     On careful perusal of record  it is seen that the SLP was listed on 31.1.2014 and the OP.1 has taken some steps in the matter.  He also filed application, documents and affidavit of the complainant on 10.2.2014.  The Advocate was informed and on impression that the case was posted to 20.2.2014 and hence he attended his family function.  Unfortunately the case which was posted on 14.2.2014 was dismissed on the same day for non prosecution.  It is also seen that the OP.1 filed restoration petition on 20.2.2014 before the Hon’ble Court which was listed on 04.04.2014 on which date the Advocate was seriously ailing and hospitalized.  The OP.1 has also filed relevant documents regarding his illness and treatment during the relevant period which appears to be true.  However, the OP.1 had engaged another Advocate on record but in spite of efforts, the petition was dismissed on 04.04.2014 by the Hon’ble Court.

7.                     From the above discussions, it is seen that the OP.1 has tried his best to save his client from any kind of loss and unsuccessful in the matter is not the fault of OP.1 as discussed above.  Hence we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.1.

8.                     In the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the case of the complainant which needs to be dismissed.  In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs.

(to dict.)