State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ms. Sahana Arya vs Mr.Irfan, S/O. Mir Manzar Ali on 2 February, 2010
Appeal No. 212/2010
Filed on 13.01.2010
Disposed on 02.02.2010
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAMANNA : PRESIDENT
SRI.T. HARIAPPA GOWDA : MEMBER
SMT.RAMA ANANTH : MEMBER
1. Ms. Sahana Arya
D/ 0 .Aravinda Arya,
Aged 34 years,
Halepete Kantapura,
Periyapatna 571 107.
Mysore District.
. Complainant before the DF
.....Appellant/ s
(By Shri/Smt party in person).
-Versus-
1. Mr.Irfan, S/o. Mir Manzar Ali
Aged 28 years,
Practicing Advocate,
having his office at:
Above the Sub-Registrar Office,
B.M.Road, Periyapatna 571 107.
Mysore District.
. OP before the DF
..... Respondent/ s
This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful complainant
challenging the order dated 23.12.2009 passed in Complaint
No.304/2009 by he DF, Mysore whereby the complaint came to
be dismissed. Therefore she has come up with this appeal.
The case of the appellant / complainant in brief is that she was engaged the respondent /OP to defend her in Criminal Case ~ No.296/2008 before JMFC, Periyapatna and so also in the security proceedings initiated under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. Nos. 49 and 64/2008 before the Executive Magistrate, Periyapatna. Accordingly she paid a sum of Rs.25,00d 1- as legal fee to defend in the security proceedings and Rs.8,000 1- the criminal case before the JMFC and so also Rs.300 1- on 13 hearing dates. Since the respondent lOP did not received the documents to substantiate the defence, forced to compromise, remained absent unnecessarily from attending the Court, despite payment of sufficient fees demand more and more fee and forced to receive money in the matter and asked the complainant to consent for prepare tele-film. Since she was not obliged the further demands made by the respondent lOP, she has engaged some other advocate to defend her in the afore said cases pending before JMFC, Periyapatna and before Taluk Executive Magistrate, Periyapatna. Since the respondent lOP did not tell anything to her so as to engage some other counsel. On 22.04.2009, the case was listed for hearing. On that day the respondent lOP demanded Rs.50,000 1- as fees and even sent SMS. On 16.06.2009 through somebody, copy of FIR and Vakalath with no objection were sent and so also at 9.23 a.m. SMS was sent to the complainant, stating that since the complainant has no faith in the opposite party, the respondent lOP did not intend to proceed with the matter. Therefore, she was informed through SMS that, the case was posted for hearing before the Court and hence, the complainant has to appear before the Court or else warrant will be issued and the respondent lOP is ready to retire from. her case. Therefore she filed a complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the respondent lOP.
After serVIce of notice, th~ respondent lOP appeared and filed verSIOn. Before filing a complaint, she approached Bar counsel and also police complaining -against the respondent lOP but they have not taken any action against the respondent lOP, therefore filed a complaint.
After receipt of notice the respondent lOP appeared and admitted about the appellant I complainant engaging him to defend her in Criminal case and security proceedings initiated under section 107 of Cr.P.C. Nos. 49 & 64/2008 before the Executive Magistrate, Periyapatna. Since the appellant I complainant failed to substantiate her case with regard to the alleged deficiency of service by the respondent lOP, he informed the appellant I complainant that he dq not intend to continue the matter as an advocate, he promptly sent a message through SMS to the complainant to appear before the Court so also he returned other papers connected to the criminal case and proceedings pending before the Taluk Executive Magistrate. Since the appellant I complainant utterly failed to substantiate her contentions about the alleged deficiency, viewed from any angle, we have nol::notedany incorrect or illegal findings recorded by the DF. Hence the impugned order does not call for any interference. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER ~ MEMBER