JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appeal 160/09 has been filed by the complainant in OP 225/06 and FA 176/09 by the opposite party/appellant in FA 176/09 who is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs. The appellant in FA 160/09/complainant has sought for an enhanced amount of compensation and the appellant in FA 176/09/opposite party has sought for setting aside the order of the Forum. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he entrusted the opposite party who is an advocate to file proceedings before the Supreme Court over the order of the High Court in Writ Petition 710/05. According to him the remuneration to the opposite party was agreed as Rs. 50,000/-; and on 08-04-2005 the relevant documents and Rs. 40,000/- was given to the opposite party. He also signed in the required petition form of the Supreme Court. According to him the opposite party got the petition filed before the Supreme Court only on 16-05-2005 after the vacation commenced at the Supreme Court and hence he could not obtain a stay order. Thereafter he had to file an interim application before the Munsiff Court and also two Writ Petitions and Review Petition before the High Court. The opposite party failed to produce the order in the CRP of the High Court before the Supreme Court. It is also alleged that the opposite party did not return the documents or hand over the Supreme Court order and insisted for payment of the balance Rs. 10,000/- for returning of the documents etc. He has sought for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- that he had to incur for obtaining stay order and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and Rs. 3,00,000/- for the consequent delay that would be caused in the disposal of the case and Rs. 1,00,000/- for conducting the case for the remaining period and Rs. 40,000/- the amount that he paid to the opposite party. 3. The following are the contentions of the opposite party as mentioned in the order of the Forum. He has denied that he ever appeared for the complainant or was entrusted with the matter. According to him he advised the complainant that there is no scope for filing SLP before the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court. He only furnished the names and contact numbers of a few advocates who are stationed at Delhi and practicing before the Supreme Court. He has not received any fee for consultation. Subsequently he came to know that the complainant using the opposite party’s name contacted an advocate practicing before the Supreme Court and engaged him to file the SLP. According to him he warned the complainant for representing that the opposite party is a close friend of the complainant before the advocate at the Supreme Court. According to him the above led to the animosity between the complainant and the opposite party. The complaint is filed only to defame opposite party. 4. Evidence adduced consisted of Ext.P1 to P8 5. The Forum has relied on Ext.P1, the photo copy of the letter dated 16-05-2005 from Naveen R. Nath of LAW LINKS, Advocates and Legal Consultants to the opposite party mentioning that the SLP has been filed in the registry of the Supreme Court on 16-05-2005 and that the Supreme Court has been closed for summer vacation on 13-05-2005 and will reopen only on 11-07-2005 and that the matter will be listed after reopening. The Forum has noted that there is no evidence to establish the receipt of Rs. 40,000/- towards advocate fee by the opposite party. It is only relying on Ext.P1 that the Forum has directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation finding that there is service deficiency. It was found that the opposite party is the person who had arranged the Counsel for the complainant. 6. We find that no evidence has been adduced by the respective parties before the Forum; not even proof affidavits have been filed. Assumptions and inferences would not be substitute for evidence. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Forum. The Forum is directed to permit the parties to adduce further evidence in the matter and dispose of the case by a considered order. The case stands posted before the Forum on 24-12-2009. The office is directed to forward the copy of this order and the lower court records to the Forum urgently. Both the appeals are disposed of as above. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER | 
