State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rangu Dakshina Murthy And Others ... vs Sri Radhampu Kanaka Chary And Others ... on 4 December, 2008
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD F.A. 787/2008 against C.D. 146/2006 Dist. Forum, Karimnagar Between: Rangu Dakshina Murthy S/o. Ramaswamy Retired Teacher, 65 years C/o. K. Narasimha Swamy H.No. 5-4-240, Maruthinagar Karimnagar Dist. *** Appellant/ Complainant Vs. Sri Radhampu Kanaka Chary Advocate, Enrolment No. 1543/91 H.No. 2-10-1022, Jyothinagar Karimnagar-505 002. *** Respondent/ Opposite Party Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. M. Ramgopal Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. D. Krishna Murthy F.A. 946/2007 against C.D. 146/2006 Dist. Forum, Karimnagar Between: Sri Radhampu Kanaka Chary Advocate, Enrolment No. 1543/91 H.No. 2-10-1022, Jyothinagar Karimnagar-505 002. *** Appellant/ Opposite Party Vs. Rangu Dakshina Murthy S/o. Ramaswamy Retired Teacher, 65 years C/o. K. Narasimha Swamy H.No. 5-4-240, Maruthinagar Karimnagar Dist. *** Respondent/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. D. Krishna Murthy Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. M. Ramgopal Reddy QUORUM: HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT & SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
THURSDAY, THIS THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND EIGHT Oral Order ( Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) *** Aggrieved by the order in C.D. No. 146/2006 on the file of Dist. Forum, Karimnagar complainant preferred F.A. 787/2008 and the Opposite Party preferred F.A. 946/2007. . Since both the appeals arise out of common order they are being disposed of by a common order.
The appeals arise in this way. The complainant purchased Ac. 1-20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 804 at Kondapalkala village vide registered sale deed Dt. 9.3.1995. In order to get patta pass book he has to get his name mutated in the Pahani records as Pattedar, he approached the respondent an advocate for initiating the proceedings before the concerned revenue authorities for which he had paid Rs. 3,000/- and there after Rs.5,000/- vide cheque Dt. 18.6.2004. However, the opposite party did not take steps to get the pass book etc. mutated in his name. As such he requested him to pay back his amount but received no response. Hence he sought for a direction to the opposite party to pay back the amount i.e., Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation towards mental agony and costs.
Opposite Party/respondent resisted the case. He admitted that the complainant purchased the land through registered sale deed. He came to him with a request to file an application before MRO, Manakondur for mutation. On his petition the MRO, Manakondur issued pass book and title deed to him even though the mutation was not carried out. Actually, the MRO mutated the land earlier in favour one Reddy Raji Reddy in the pahani. After 8 years of execution of registered sale deed the complainant approached him in 2003 along with registered sale deed, pass book, pahani, and tax receipt and requested him to take steps for entering his name in Pahani from the date of registration i.e., 1995. The complainant was his school teacher in the year 1980. Out of respect for him, he has represented on his behalf in MRO office, Manakondur, and later before RDO, Karimnagar. He also filed an appeal before the DRO at Karimnagar on 5.8.2003 for entering his name in the Pahani as Pattedar. In spite of several representations to the DRO, Karimnagar there was no response. Thereafter a memo was got issued through Collector informing the complainant to file a case before MRO, Manakondur for mutation. As per the memo of DRO, Karimnagar, opposite party approached the MRO, Manakondur and filed vakalat on 14.12.2003 along with relevant documents. The MRO, Manakondur conducted re-enquiry and adjourned the case several times and finally passed orders through a memo on 28.1.2006 observing that once passed orders from this office and again this office will have no power to pass any further orders in this regard.
When the complainant wanted to file an appeal through some other counsel he handed over the file to him. In fact, the complainant filed an appeal before the Dist. Collector, Karimnagar through another advocate. Thereafter he filed this complaint on 3.7.2006. The MRO, Manakondur is 10 KMs from Karimnagar. He received Rs. 5,000/- only towards his fee inclusive of travelling expenses to appear before RDO, Karimnagar and MRO, Manakondur. He never promised that he would take favourable orders and complete his work. The complainant did not file the orders of the RDO, Karimangar and MRO, Manakondur, and suppressed the real facts. There was no deficiency in service on his part, and did not receive any notice from the complainant. He also filed a complaint before the Bar Council of A.P. on 3.7.2006 vide complaint No. 66/2006 with the same allegations he cannot file a complaint before the Dist. Forum. The complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Based on the evidence Exs. A1 to A7 and Exs. B1 to B13 besides the pleadings the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of complaint i.e., from 3.8.2006 and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, while the complainant preferred F.A. 787/2008 against granting inadequate compensation, the Opposite Party preferred F.A. 946/2007 against the very granting of compensation.
The complainant contends that he has paid advocate fee and expenses in June, 2004 and the opposite party an advocate has neither filed any application before the MRO or RDO nor pursued the matter for getting his name mutated in Pahani or revenue records in the office of MRO. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay the entire compensation claimed by him.
On the other hand in F.A. No. 946/2007 the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that he had immediately filed an appeal before the DRO, Karimnagar on 5.3.2003 and pursued the case and the DRO, Karimnagar disposed of the appeal by order Dt. 13.9.2003 directing the complainant to make an appeal before the MRO, Manakondur for mutation. As per the directions of the DRO, Karimnagar, he also filed an application before the MRO, Manakondur on 14.12.2003 and pleaded for mutation of the name of the complainant in revenue records. The MRO, Manakondur passed an order vide Memo Dt. 28.1.2006 stating that Once passed orders from this office and again this office will have no power to pass any further orders in this regard. He further contended that the complainant thereafter taken away the file stating that he would engage another counsel. There was no deficiency in service on his part.
It is not in dispute that the complainant had engaged the services of opposite party an advocate for initiating proceedings before the revenue authorities for getting his name mutated in Pahani records as Pattedar and possessor in respect of his agricultural land.
The complainant has not filed the order copy of the MRO, Manakondur or RDO, Karimnagar to show that the opposite party did not appear before the said officials.
It is pertinent to note that opposite party filed Ex. B2 copy of the memo issued by the Dist. Collector, Karimnagar Dt. 13.9.2003, Ex. B10 copy of application submitted for the order of MRO, Ex. B11 copy of the appeal filed before the DRO, Karimnagar Dt. 5.3.2003, and Ex. B12 copy of Memo issued by MRO, Manakondur Dt. 28.2.2007 to the opposite party. From this we are certain that the opposite party had indeed appeared before the MRO, Manakondur and pursued the case. The contention of the complainant that opposite party had promised to procure the pass book and title deed and complete mutation is unsustainable on the ground that all the proceedings before any statutory authority are quasi-judicial in nature and nobody can give such an assurance. Any case filed before the concerned authorities will depend on the merits of the case. It is also evident from the record that opposite party had indeed pursued the case and the complainant there after engaged another counsel. Ex-facie there is no proof that the services rendered by the opposite party could be termed as deficient. We found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
As there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, we allow F.A. 946/2007 preferred by the opposite party. The order of the Dist. Forum is set aside, and consequently the complaint is dismissed. As a sequel F.A. No. 787/2008 preferred by the complainant is also dismissed. No costs.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER Dt. 04. 12. 2008.