Present complainant is no doubt a clinet of Ld Lawyer Sanatan Roy Chowdhury and said S.R. Chowdhury Advocate is op in this case against whom complainant has alleged that on the date of hearing of this case being Title Suit No.48/1979 (Misc Case No. 629 of 2010) the said Ld. Lawyer even after receipt of Rs.10,000/- through his junior D. Dutta  and also personally did not attend on the date of hearing of the said Misc. case on 02.07.2011 when the case was called for hearing and for his negligent and deficient manner of service of op the complaint was filed by the complainant against this lawyer.

          Whereas the Ld. Lawyer by filing written statement has submitted that the statement in para – 1 to 5 of the complaint are matter of records but he has submitted that op appeared in time and maintained his duty.  In that case on 2^nd July 2011 but the complainant was absent on that date and for absence of the complainant Ld. Lawyer (op) did not take step on 2^nd July 2011 and the case was dismissed due to latches and negligence on the part of the op.  But Ld. Lawyer(op) has no fault and entire case is vexatious and allegation is false and prays for dismissal of the case.

                                                Decision with reasons

          No doubt it is very peculiar case in this Forum.  In view of the fact that against the lawyer no complaint is ever filed in this Forum and from the last two years we have not gone through such complaint.  So, we have relied upon the argument of the Ld. Lawyer for the op and Ld. Lawyer for the op submitted it is undisputed fact that the present op was the lawyer of the complainant for dealing with the case being T.S. No. 48/19799Misc No.629/2010) before the Ld. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, 6^th Court at Alipore and it is argued by the Advocate that on the hearing date i.e. on 02.07.2011 Ld. Lawyer had scope to take step for complaint but complainant was absent for which the Ld. Lawyer of complainant did not take any step for which the case was dismissed for default.

          Whereas the complainant appearing personally before this Forum personally submitted that the Ld. Lawyer received Rs.10,000/- as fees and he was assured that he will take all material steps in respect of that case on his behalf and no doubt it is admitted position that it is the duty of the Ld. Lawyer on behalf of his client to keep watch about the case as and when it is called for and at the same time it is the duty of the Ld. Lawyer to keep watch about the case so that the case may not be dismissed.  But in this case the Ld. Lawyer of complainant i.e. op has admitted that he was present but did not take any step even though he was confirmed that complainant did not appear on that date.  But reason for not taking any step by the Ld. Lawyer for absence of the client is not explained.

          Then question is if any client fails to appear before Court on any date of hearing whether the case was automatically dismissed in presence of the Ld. Lawyer of the client, probably that is not the ethics of any Advocate.  In this regard we are placing in this judgement the final order of the Ld. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, 6^th Court on 02.07.2011 and from copy of the order it is found that on that date complainant’s advocate was also not present, but his Ld. Lawyer fails to file advocate’s hajira.  Then what prevented the present op/Ld. Lawyer of the complainant to file his hajira on behalf of the complainant.  When it is a Misc Case.  But truth is that the Ld Lawyer on behalf of the op was present but truth is that Rs.10,000/- has been paid and being appointed by the Ld. Lawyer on behalf of the complainant on the basis of the power which is filed by the complainant to conduct the case,  it was an obligatory duty on the part of the Ld. Lawyer to appear on that date and to file his hajira on behalf of the complainant but that has not been done.  But we are sure that there must be the moral approach of the Ld. Lawyer to take step on behalf of the complainant.  If it is found that his client is not attending for more than two or three occasions, in that case it is the duty of the Ld. Lawyer to send a letter by registered post with A/D informing his client if he does not come and appear in that case he shall not have to take any action and he shall retire but no letter was sent by the op.  Then it is clear that Ld. Lawyer did not act properly and he did not discharge his duty as lawyer of the complainant.  No doubt that is the deficient manner of service on the part of the op and fact remains that complainant suffered for the latches on the part of the op.  Another factor is that op (Ld. Lawyer) had not taken any step though his client was also absent on that date.  Then invariably complainant has suffered loss for the latches on the part of the op and for op’s negligent and deficient manner of service, complainant was again compelled to enter into another Misc case.  So, the complainant’s fate is sealed to get actual result in the Title Suit No.48 of the year 1979.  In the light of the above observations we are convinced to hold that complainant has able to prove that deficient and negligent manner of service on the part of the op to the complainant and for negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the op, complainant suffered huge financial loss and also his case is dismissed for the latches of the op.

          Most interesting factor is that order of the Ld. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, 6^th Court simply proves on that date of hearing defendant was absent but his Ld. Lawyer filed hajira on behalf of the defendant.  But this present op lawyer did not take any step to same the case though he was present in the Court.  Can a prudent man believe that a lawyer appeared along with briefs but did not take step?  If step had been taken but even if then it was rejected by the Court in that case the op has no reason to explain anything more but no doubt his latches is proved from any manner of doubt which is out of any expression. 

          In the result, we are confirmed that complainant has invariably proved the deficient and negligent manner of service of op for which the complainant is charged against the op.

          In the result, the complaint succeeds in part.

          Hence, it is

                                                 ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.2,000/- against the op.

          Op is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental pain, harassment, agony for dismissal of this Misc. Case No.629/2010 on 02.07.2011 only for the latches and negligent manner of service on the part of the op.

             Op is directed to pay the entire decretal cost to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order failing which for each day’s delay he shall have to deposit a sum of Rs.100/- per day as punitive damages to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.  This Forum is sure that the op shall have to comply the order beyond any manner of doubt without takjng any chance for violating this order.