State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
John Ulahannan, vs Satheesh Chandra, Advocate, on 21 February, 2013
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/12/212 (Arisen out of Order Dated 31/05/2011 in Case No. CC/08/277 of District Thiruvananthapuram) 1. JOHN ULAHANNAN ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SATHEESH CHANDRA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'ABLE MR. SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 212/12
JUDGMENT DATED: 21.02.2013
PRESENT:
SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI. A. RADHA : MEMBER
John Ulahannan,
S/o Ulahannan, Madasseril Veedu, : APPELLANT
Kalavoor.P.O, Alappuzha,
PIN - 688 522.
Vs.
Satheesh Chandra, Advocate,
Room No.123, Municipal Sathram, : RESPONDENT
Alappuzha, PIN - 688 002.
(By Adv: Sri. Sandeep.T.George)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the complainant in CC.277/08 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint was originally filed before the CDRF, Alappuzha as OP.294/04 and was transferred to the CDRF, Thirvananthapuram as per order of this Commission. The complainant had availed a loan of Rs.1 lakh from the Alappuzha District Agricultural Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank to start a Pig Farm. It appears that after the starting of the pig farm disputes arose with the officials of the Mararikkulam Panchayat District Land Mortgage Bank and nearby residents of the pig farm and cases were filed in the Civil Court in connection with those disputes. The appellant had engaged the opposite party herein, a lawyer at Alappuzha to contest the cases on behalf of the complainant. It is alleged in the complaint that contrary to his expectations the opposite party acted against the interests of the complainant. The opposite party with malafide intention supported his rivals and as a result complainant sustained financial loss and suffered mental strain. The complainant claimed a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs towards deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and towards mental pain suffered by the complainant.
2. The opposite party filed version and contended before the Forum that the complainant had approached him to contest the case preferred by his rivals as MC.No.92/01 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Alappuzha and to institute a Suit before the Civil Court, Alappuzha for permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain rival defendants therein from trespassing into his property and from destroying the pig farm situated therein and from doing any act of mischief in the aforesaid property. The opposite party had filed CMP.173/02 on 23.4.2002 before the District Court, Alappuzha as Vacation Court. It was subsequently transferred to the Munsiffs Court, Alappuzha and numbered as OS.299/02. The opposite party contended that he had attended and prosecuted the case on behalf of the complainant till 4.2.2003. The opposite party had also appeared on behalf of the complainant in MC.No.92/01 before the RDO, Alappuzha. But the opposite party never acted against the interest of his client in contesting and conducting the cases. As informed by the wife of the complainant on 12.6.2002 the opposite party appeared before the RDO, Alappuzha and submitted before him in MC.92/01 that the complainant was missing from 21.5.02. He also filed petition to implead the wife and children of the complainant as necessary parties. But on 4.2.2003 complainant sought relinquishment of his vakalath and accordingly the opposite party relinquished the vakalath. There was no default or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in appearing and conducting cases on behalf of the complainant. The opposite party wanted dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs.
3. Before the Forum, the complainant gave oral evidence as PW1. Exts.P1 to P57 were marked on his side. The brother of the complainant was examined as PW2. The opposite party filed affidavit and marked Exts.D1 to D7 on his side.
4. The Forum after considering the evidence adduced held that no deficiency of service was established on the part of the opposite party. The complaint itself was malafide, frivolous and vexatious which deserved to be dismissed with compensatory costs. However the Forum refrained from ordering compensatory costs since the complainant appeared in person and was ignorant of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has challenged the conclusions of the Forum in this appeal.
5. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order requires any interference by this Commission.
6. At the outset it may be mentioned that a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or this Commission gets jurisdiction to entertain a complaint only when service is availed by a person for consideration. There is no allegation in the complaint that the services of the opposite party as alleged, was availed on payment of consideration or on promise to pay consideration. As such it is difficult to entertain the complaint. Not only that, the nature of the complainant is material. No doubt if he has genuine grievance he is entitled to approach the proper Court or a Forum any number of times, but that does not appears to be the case here. Not only that the complainant is involved in several proceedings before the RDO, Civil Court and before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum he has adopted funny tactics. It is evident from his own version, that he started the pig farm without obtaining licence. He claimed that he went away from the native place on 21.5.2002 and he did not return even on the date on which he was giving version before the Forum. He is engaged in conducting cases and did not return to his house he claimed that the pig farm was confiscated by the defendants in O.S. No.299/02. So it is obvious that he is engaged in several litigations and went to the extent of asking his wife to report before the RDO that he was missing from the locality. The opposite party went to the extent of complying with the request and filing petition to implead the wife and children of the complainant as party to MC.92/01 that was pending in the RDO, Alappuzha. It further appears that the opposite party was engaged as the lawyer of the complainant for a brief period of around 10 months. It is not denied that at the request of the complainant the opposite party relinquished his vakalath on 4.2.2003. The allegation that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is to be examined in this background.
7. The allegation against the opposite party itself is vague and insufficient. Most of the records produced are irrelevant to decide the fact whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party or not. Relevant records like Ext.P8 does not reveal that the opposite party committed any deficiency in service even while the complainant was absent. The learned counsel appeared before the concerned courts and represented the matter. As a professional what is expected from the opposite party is not the highest expertise or the lowest but expertise of reasonable standards. In taking contentions and representing matters he has never failed in his duty to represent the complainant properly. There is also nothing in evidence to show that he had not showed reasonable expertise in defending or prosecuting cases on behalf of the complainant. In the above circumstances the Forum was fully justified in concluding that no deficiency in service is established on the part of the opposite party. What exactly was the fraud committed by the opposite party is not alleged in the complaint with particulars nor is there any evidence to indicate that the complainant had colluded with the opposite side in the cases in which the opposite party herein appeared as the counsel for the complainant. In fact there is reason to conclude that the complaint is malafide and vexatious. In short the Forum rightly dismissed the complaint. The appeal is devoid of merit.
In the result the appeal is dismissed but without costs.
K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER A. RADHA : MEMBER VL.
[HON'ABLE MR. SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR] PRESIDING MEMBER