Kerala

Idukki

CC/27/2019

R Mohan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sumesh s - Opp.Party(s)

29 Nov 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :30/01/19

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29^th day of November 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 27/2019

Between

Complainant : R.Mohan, S/o Ramaswamy,

Poosari Veedu Perumala, Kanthalloor,

Devikulam Taluk, Idukki District – 685 620.

And

Opposite Party : Sumesh S, Kalarickal,

Advocate, Devikulam,

Devikulam Taluk, Idukki District – 685 613.

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant is an agriculturist. Opposite party is an Advocate practising in Devikulam court centre. On a dispute regarding to an agreement between the complainant and the one Thankachan, residing at Ooruvasal, Marayoor and one Yusaf, Kovilkadavu. This parties filed a Civil Suit against the complainant before the Munsiff Court, Devikulam as OS NO.199/2015. On getting the notice from the court, complainant approached the opposite party advocate entrusted his vakkalth to the advocate for contenting the matter from the date of entrustment of Vakkalath. Complainant paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- in total as fees to the advocate on different times. In addition to this amount, the opposite party advocate demanded Rs.2 Lakhs from the complainant on the reason that to be remitted before the court in that civil case. Believing the words of the opposite party, complainant entrusted Rs.2 Lakhs to opposite party on 17/02/16. Thereafter the complainant was hospitalized due to Pancreas Problem and he was treated in MOSC, Medical College, Kolenchery as inpatient for a period of nearly two months. In the meantime complainant entrusted his medical records to the

(Cont.....2)

-2-

 

opposite party advocate for producing before the Forum for adjourning the case. But thereafter the complainant came to know that, the Munsiff Court, Devikulam decided the case as Ex-parte. At that the complainant forced to compromise the matter with the plaintiff in the above said matter with the help of some mediators.

 

Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party advocate and demanded Rs.2 Lakhs back. On enquiry he convinced that, the opposite party has not deposited any amount in before the Munsiff Court, Devikulam in the above case and he fraudulently created such a story only for making undue enrichment by cheating the complainant.

 

Complainant further stated that he entrusted the civil case to the opposite party only on the firm belief that he will extent his service bonafidely. But the opposite party advocate played foul role in this matter. Eventhough he accepted Vakkalath and service charges from the complainant, he willfully evaded from appearing before the court for and on behalf of the complainant, hence the Munsiff Court declared the complainant ex-parte and decided the matter without hearing him. In addition to it, the opposite party realized Rs.2 Lakhs from the complainant illegally and unlawfully. Due to the unlawful act of the opposite party, the complainant had suffered a lot both mentally and financially.

 

The act of the opposite party in this case is a gross deficiency in his service as well as unfair trade practice and hence the complainant approached this Forum for getting relief such as to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2 Lakhs which was realized from the complainant fraudulently and further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost.

 

Even though the notices from this Forum accepted by the opposite party, he failed to appear before the Forum and resist the averments in the complaint. After giving sufficient time for the appearance of the opposite party, the Forum declared the opposite party ex-parte and the complaint is posted for evidence.

 

(Cont.....3)

-3-

Complainant adduced evidence by way of proof affidavit and documents. Complainant was examined as PW1, copy of decree judgment in OS No.199/15 of the Munsiff Court, Devikulam, copy of agreement dated 04/11/18 (between the plaintiff in the OS), copy of mortgage deed, copy of release deed, copy of injunction order are marked as Ext.P1 to Ext.P5 respectively.

 

Heard by the counsel for the complainant,

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The Point:- We have heard the counsel for the complainant and had gone through the records. On perusing the documents and contention in the proof affidavit it is seen that the complainant averments, proof affidavit contention and Ext.P1 to Ext.P5 documents are unchallenged. Hence the Forum is of a considered view that since the complaint and the evidence produced by the complainant are unchallenged. Hence the complaint is allowed, non merits. The Forum directed the opposite party to pay Rs.2 Lakhs as the amount realized by the opposite party from the complainant by using fraud and further directed the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and along with Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amount stated above except the cost, the opposite party is liable to pay interest @ 12% from the date of default till its realization.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of November, 2019.

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

 

(Cont.....4)

-4-

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - R.Mohan

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1- Copy of decree judgment in OS No.199/15 of the Munsiff Court, Devikulam

Ext.P2 -Copy of agreement dated 04/11/18 (between the plaintiff in the OS)

Ext.P3- Copy of mortgage deed

Ext.P4- Copy of release deed

Ext.P5- Copy of injunction order

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT