Date of filing: 26.02.2018 Date of order : 11.10.2018
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA, Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
THURSDAY, 11th day of October, 2018
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 12 / 2018
Dr. B. Ramachandraiah,
D.No. 1-334-4, Pragathi Hospital,
Maruthi Nagar,a Kadapa, A.P. …. Complainant.
Vs.
Sri K. Ravidrababu, Advocate,
H.No. 45-142-26-F1/1,
Machini Somappa Colony, Kurnool. ….. Opposite Party.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 03.10.2018 in the presence of complainant appeared in person and Sri Koka Srinivasa Kumar, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, Member),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) to direct the opposite party compensation for deficiency of service of Rs.4,00,000/-, to pay Rs. 75,000/- towards mental agony, Rs. 1,000/- cost and legal expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards costs altogether totaling Rs. 4,99,800/- from the opposite party for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant approached opposite party to file vakalath before special for trial of ACB cases at Kurnool in C.C.No. 85/2013 and given signature in vakalathnama. The opposite party demanded the complainant of Rs. 25,000/- and complainant deposited at Karur Vysya Bank Rs. 10,000/- on 05.9.2014 and Rs. 15,000/- on 19.5.2015. The opposite party did not filed Vakalathnama and not returned vakalathnama to the complainant. The opposite party not filed Vakalath in ACB Court in Crl.M.P.No. 261/2015 in C.C. NO. 85/2013 as the opposite party argued the matter the matter was dismissed on22.12.2015. The complainant got C.A copies through N. Shanmukham on 13.01.2016 the advocate that on record in C.C. copies was Krishna Murthy. The complainant by phone contacted the oppose party for so many times but there was no reply. The complainant sent SMS message and whats app. message to the opposite party on 09.01.2018. The complainant sent registered legal notice dt. 10.01.2018 without interest. As there was deficiency in service and opposite party did not sent any interest on principal amount of Rs. 25,000/- and for mental agony. The complaint filed this case. Hence, the complaint.
3. Written version filed by the opposite party. The complaint filed the complaint neither maintainable nor admissible on facts of the case. It is a fact that the complainant approached opposite party and requested to defend his case and paid Rs. 25,000/- inimical fees but the complainant did not obtained no objection on the vakalathnama by previous standing counsel. Through the opposite party given instructions to the complainant to get no objection from his previous counsel. The complainant failed to obtain the same and he had paid Rs. 25,000/- fee amount in two installments i.e. on 05.9.2014 for Rs. 10,000/- and 19.5.2014 for Rs. 15,000/-. The opposite party had rendered service like consultation with regard to defends of the case and the previous counsel here on record Sri B. Krishna Murthy did not appeared / represented the complainant’s case. Somany times this opposite party failed to get no objection from Sri B. Krishna Murthy, advocate on record. The complainant for the reasons beset known to him to bring no objection from his previous B. Krishna Murthy. The complainant did not come forward for finalization fee also. So the opposite party refused to take same. The complainant filed an application and he defended himself in the above case before ACB court. On 08.01.2018 the complainant requested opposite party to return his fee as he has not defended on his behalf the opposite party agreed return the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant as a responsible legal practitioner. The opposite party submits that the averments of the complaint are all total false and directed only for illegal gain and damage the professional image of the opposite party. Hence, the complaint is dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. On behalf of complainant Exs. A1 to A4 were marked and on behalf of opposite party Exs. B1 to B4 were marked.
5. From the above averments the following points are settled for determination:-
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him or not ?
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party or not ?
- To what relief ?
6. Point Nos. i and ii It is very clear that the complainant had paid a fee amount of Rs. 25,000/- on 05.9.2014 and 19.5.2015 to the opposite party under Ex. A2 for filing Vakalath. The complainant did not filed any piece of document to prove that he had given Vakalath in proper form i.e. taking no objection from previous counsel and handed over the same with his signature of the opposite party. Ex. B1 clearly proves that there was previous counsel by name B. Krishna Murthy and Shyam Kumar Reddy on behalf of complainant in C.C. No. 85/2013 before ACB Court, Kurnool. Why giving Vakalathname to another advocate there is a procedure to get no objection from the previous counsel. Here the complainant did not do so. It is failure on the part of the complainant itself. Ex. B3 clearly proves that Crl.M.P. No. 261/2015 in C.C. No. 85/2013 before ACB Court, Kurnool was dismissed that the petitioner / accused officer did not give relevant reasons. So there was no reason to allow the petition. The petition was dismissed. The O.P. is no way responsible for the same as he had no Vakalath to appear on behalf of the complainant and defend on behalf of the complainant. Ex. A3 very clear that one Sri B. Krishna Murthy was counsel for the petitioner i.e. complainant herein. Ex. A4 clearly shows that the O.P. had deposited Rs. 25,000/- in the name of the complainant on 19.01.2018. Ex. B1 also clearly proves that there are two advocates i.e. one B. Krishna Murthy and Shayam Kumar Reddy on behalf of complainant in C.C. No. 85/2013. The counter i.e. Ex. B2 filed in C.C. No. 85/2013, there was no relevant documents and witnesses on behalf of petitioner / accused officer i.e. the complainant in this case. So the Crl.M.P. No. 261/2015 in C.C.No. 85/2013 was dismissed on 22.12.2015. Ex.B4 order copy clearly shows that the complainant herein he himself defended his case. It does not support the case of the complainant here in this C.C. Ex. A1 is legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party on 10.01.2018 after that the O.P. on 19.5.2015 had credited amount to the complainant i.e. Rs. 25,000/- under Ex.A4. From all the above circumstances it is very clear that the complainant had not given Vakalathnama to the opposite party in proper form without no objection from the previous counsel on record no another advocate will file vakalathname on behalf of parties. Here the complainant utterly failed to prove his case and at the same there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
7. The opposite party had filed citations which supports the case of the opposite party. In III (2011) CPJ 50 Sou Supriya (Jyoti) R. Deshpande Vs. Sau Archana A. Kulkarni, Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai. In II (2011) CPJ 573 N. Rengasamy Vs. P. Jyothi Murugadoss, Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. he had not filed Vakalathname only on the ground that the complainant failed to get no objection from the previous counsel on the memo of appearance to defend on his behalf and the O.P. had paid the amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant on 19.01.2015 under Ex. A4. So the complainant is not eligible for any compensation and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
8. Point No.iii:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 11th day of October, 2018
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
Witnesses examined for the Complainant: NIL
Witnesses examined for the Opposite party: NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex.A1 P/c of the legal notice dated 10-01-2018 to respondent with R.P Receipt.
Ex.A2 Original two cash slips dated 05-09-2014, 19-05-2015 for RS.10,000/-
and 15,000/- as respondent Karur Vysya Bank Account No. at Kurnool.
Ex.A3 Copy of Crl. M.P. 261/2015 in CC.No.85/2013 Befor Hon’ble court of the
Judge, Spl. Court for Trail of ACB Cases in Rayalaseema Region, at Kurnool.
Ex.A4 Copy of original Bank Statement showing Respondent deposited Rs.25,000/- to the my SB Account in Bank of India, Kadapa on 19-01-2018.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite party :–
Ex.B1 Copy of Memo of Appertance filed by B.Krishna Murthy, & Shym Kumar Reddy, Advocates.
Ex.B2 Copy of Counter filed by the prosecutor in Crl. M.P.No.261/2015,
dt.21-11-2015.
Ex.B3 Copy of petition in Crl. M.P.No.715/2016 filed by the complainant U/Sec.303 Cr.P.C. on 29-11-2016.
Ex.B4 Copy of Order dated 11-01-2017 in Crl.M.P.No.715/2016 in C.C.No.85/2013.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Dr. B. Ramachandraiah, D.No. 1-334-4, Pragathi Hospital, Maruthi Nagar,a Kadapa, A.P.
- Sri Koka Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for opposite party.
B.V.P
