State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Srinivas Chowdhary, S/O.Late ... vs Prabhakar Yelmeli S/O.Bhima Shankar ... on 11 August, 2011
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No.301/2008 against C.C.No.551/2007, District Forum-III, Hyderabad.. Between Srinivas Chowdhary, S/o.late M.Chowdary, Aged about 45 years, Occ:Advocate, R/o.H.No.16-7-736/5, Osmanpura, Chaderghat, Hyderabad. Appellant/ Opp.party And Prabhakar Yelmeli S/o.Bhima Shankar Aged about 52 years, Occ:unemployed, R/o.Karajgi, Akkalkoat Tq., District Sholapur, State Maharashtra. Respondent/ Complainant. Counsel for the Appellant Mr. B.Srikanth Kumar Counsel for the Respondent: M/s.P.Rana Praveer QUORUM: THE HONBLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT. SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN (Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) **** Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.551/2007 on the file of District Forum-III, Hyderabad, the opposite party preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant who is the owner of Lorry No.MWC 4477 and resident of Sholapur District. In the course of business, on 20-10-2002, the lorry was engaged by Bashveshwar Transport to transport cloth from Sholapur to Hyderabad and some unknown persons had stolen 12 bundles of cloth from the loaded truck and the driver of the lorry lodged a complaint. The Police conducted panchanama and when the driver informed the complainant he also approached the police for assistance. Meanwhile the Branch Manager of Deepak Transport, Hyderabad requested the Police to send the lorry for unloading the remaining goods at the Vanasthalipuram godown. Accordingly the police permitted Deepak Transport and imposed a condition to redeliver the lorry in the Police Station but the vehicle was not redelivered. Thereafter, Deepak Transport lodged a false complaint against the driver for committing offence U/s.406 of IPC and the said vehicle was under the custody of Deepak Transport.
Therefore the complainant approached the opposite party advocate in the month of October, 2002 and engaged by paying fee of Rs.15,000/- besides Rs.5,000/- towards filing and typing expenses and signed the relevant papers. The complainant visited the opposite partys office at Hyderabad by travelling all the way from Sholapur to enquire about the status and release of the lorry. The opposite party instructed the complainant that a Writ Petition has to be filed and accordingly filed Writ Petition No.25180/2002 before the Honble High Court of A.P. The opposite party informed the complainant that notice was to be served on Deepak Transport and collected Rs.2,000/- from him. It is the complainants case that the Writ Petition is pending and was not posted in the list and when the complainant contacted the opposite party, there was no response. The complainant submitted that he stayed in a lodge at Hyderabad and had to incur expenses towards travelling, lodging and board and inspite of receiving fees, the opposite party neither responded nor provided any relief. The opposite party did not get the vehicle released and caused loss to the complainant because of which he had to face severe financial loss and became unemployed. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.22,000/- collected as fees from him for release of the lorry, Rs.25,000/- towards lodging and boarding expenses, Rs.4,00,000/- of being deprived of income from lorry from 2002 till date together with Rs.40,000/- towards mental agony.
Opposite party filed counter denying the allegation that the complainant has availed legal services from him by paying remuneration. He admitted that the complainant approached him in the year 2002 through one Mr.Somasekhar as a petty businessmen and as such no professional fee was charged except an amount of Rs.500/- for filing the Writ Petition No.25180/2002. The above Writ petition was filed on the instructions and on the advise of an advocate at Sholapur and the complainant after going through the contents signed the writ affidavit.
He denied that the complainant has visited his office frequently and submitted that he used to contact him over phone and thereafter stopped contacting and when he tried to contact there was no response. He also denied that he received Rs.2,000/- to serve notice on Deepak Transport. He submitted that the complainant visited him in January, 2004 with Court Summons in O.S.No.981/2002 which was filed by Deepak Transport Agencies for recovery of money against the complainant and a detailed written statement was filed. When the opposite party questioned the complainant for not contacting him, he replied that he shifted his residence from Sholapur to some other district in Maharashtra and he informed that he will furnish the changed address but there was no communication. The opposite party submitted that the complainant failed to file any documentary proof in support of his allegations and stated that if he was satisfied with his services, he ought to have taken back the file without waiting and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A9 and B1 and B2 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.5,000/- within one month from the date of the order.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal.
It is the complainants case that he is a lorry owner which transported cloth on 20-10-2002 from Sholapur to Hyderabad and some unknown persons stole 12 bundles of cloth and the complaint of theft was lodged in the police station and the lorry was shifted to the police station on the same day. Meanwhile the branch Manager of Deepak transport approached Kondapur Police Station to send the lorry for unloading the remaining goods and the police gave the permission to Deepak transport company and the vehicle was not redelivered. The complainant approached the opposite party, advocate in the month of October, 2002 and engaged him by paying a fee of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/- and repeatedly visited the opposite party to know the status of W.P.No.25180/2002 which was filed by the opposite party on the complainants instructions. The complainant submits that he paid another sum of Rs.2,000/- to opposite party and the writ petition is still pending as the opposite party did not pursue the same and did not respond to the complainants queries.
On the other hand, it is the appellants case that on receipt of Rs.500/- from the complainant towards fee, he filed W.P.No.25180/2002 and denies receipt of any other fees. In January, 2004, the complainant visited his office with court summons vide O.S.No.981/2002 filed by Deepak Transport Agency for recovery of money against the complainant.
If the complainant was not satisfied, he ought to have taken the file back immediately.
The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party contended that the Writ Petition was dismissed on 02-4-2008 and that the complainant did not approach him in between 2002 to 2004 for filing written statement under Ex.B2. The learned counsel for the appellant also filed by way of additional evidence, Ex.B3, copy of the order in W.P.No.25180/2002 in which it is observed as follows:
In the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that if a crime is registered with regard to the said vehicle, it is always open for the registered owner to file a petition before the criminal court concerned for its release under Section 457 Cr.P.C. if it is not produced before the Court below and if it is produced, it is open for the registered owner to file an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle.
In view of the remedy, available before the court below for release of the said vehicle, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief sought for in this writ petition.
Keeping in view the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Writ Petition was dismissed on 02-4-2008 and the complainant did not refute this fact and also there is no documentary evidence to substantiate the contention of the complainant that the opposite party did not take any steps to expedite the Writ petition, and the complainant also failed to establish that the acts of the opposite party resulted in dismissal of the writ, this appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum and consequently the complaint is dismissed.
In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum and consequently dismissing the complaint.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.11-8-2011