DATE OF DISPOSAL: 06.12.2023

PER:   SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT:

The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Party (in short O.P.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.  

            2. The grievance of the complainant is that he being an advocate by profession and for his livelihood purpose the complainant has engaged on different type of cases of the parties in different Court of Law. In the year 2016 the O.P. No.1 MD OSCARD Bank, Bhubaneswar in for ID Misc. case No. 01/2016 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypur, Koraput and camp court of Berhampur, Dist: Ganjam executed Vakalatanama wherein both the Complainant and Op No.1 signed the contract to conduct the aforesaid case. After disposal of the case, the complainant claimed his fees before the O.P.No.1.But the O.P.No.1 has suggested the complainant to prepare fees bill and sent the same to their office to which the O.P.No.1 will sanction the same. On 22.02.2023 the complainant prepared his professional fee bill of Rs.8,500/- and sent the said bill to the office of the O.P.No.1 but till date the O.P.No.1 not send any bill amount to the complainant which is illegal. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps for payment of Rs.8,500/- legal fees, compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.10,000/- in the interest of justice.

            3. The complaint was admitted after hearing and issued notice to the opposite parties but none appeared for the opposite parties.

            4. On the date of hearing of the complaint, the Complainant in person was present and heard from him in detail. We perused the case record including complaint, evidence on affidavit, Memo of Argument and available documents in the file.

            On analyzing the evidences in the case, it is manifest that, there was execution of Vakalatanama in between the complainant and opposite party no.1 to conduct a case of O.P.No.1 - MD OSCARD Bank, Bhubaneswar in for ID Misc. case No. 01/2016 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypur, Koraput and camp court of Berhampur. Further it is the duty of the opposite party no.1 to pay the reasonable amount as per bill submitted by the complainant as there were no fees fixed at the time of execution of the Vakalatnama. It was executed in good faith. Thus, when a client executes a Vakalatanama, which authorizes the lawyer to do certain acts on his behalf, this is a unilateral contract which has been executed by the client, and the same gives authority to the lawyer to appear and represent the matter on his behalf without any specific assurance or undertaking.

What Is a Unilateral Contract?

A unilateral contract is a one-sided contract agreement in which an offeror promises to pay only after the completion of a task by the offeree. In this type of agreement, the offeror is the only party with a contractual obligation. Section 8 of the Indian Contract Act validates general offers and hence unilateral contracts saying that acceptance done by performing the conditions in a proposal or acceptance by receiving consideration is valid acceptance.

Section 8 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as –

“Acceptance by performing conditions, or receiving consideration.—Performance of the conditions of a proposal, or the acceptance of any consideration for a reciprocal promise which may be offered with a proposal, is an acceptance of the proposal. —Performance of the conditions of a proposal, or the acceptance of any consideration for a reciprocal promise which may be offered with a proposal, is an acceptance of the proposal."

Further, Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan held in Surajmal v. Babulal&Ors. – CMA case No.: 1040 of 2015 – DOJ: March 23, 2017 that, “A bare reading of Sec. 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Order 3 Rule 4(1) CPC and upon harmonious construction of both these provisions, it clearly emerges out that an Advocate or Pleader can act and plead on behalf of a person provided he has been empowered by Vakalatnama in this behalf. In common parlance, the relationship between a litigant and a lawyer is purely contractual and such contract is complete when Vakalatanama is signed by the client and in token thereof signed by the lawyer acknowledging acceptance of the brief.” Hence both the parties should be strictly follow the contract. In view of the principles laid down in Polymat India P. Ltd. and Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors reported in AIR 2005 SC 286, “the ops should have strictly followed the contract of insurance executed between the parties.” In the instant case, the op no.1 has not taken any tangible steps in accordance with the Vakalatnama.

            Further, there is no specific claim against opposite party no.2 in the present case by the complainant.

            In the result, in view of the Polymat (Supra), Surajmal (Supra), Indian Contract Act and Advocates Act we allowed the present complaint against the opposite party no.1 and dismissed against the opposite party no.2. Further, the opposite party no.1 is directed to pay Rs.6500/- together with compensation and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum till its actual date of realization from the date of filing of this case i.e. on 10.05.2023 and the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for realization of all such dues from the opposite party no.1.

The said case was disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or they may download same from the www.confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of the order received from this Commission.

              The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 06.12.2023.