A. VEERABRAHMACHARI vs B.VENKATESWARA RAO, ADVOCATE

DISSATISFIED by the order of the District Forum, Guntur in OP 291 / 95 whereby it directed the opposite party a practising Advocate to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 130/- being the amount due and payable to the complainant and a further sum of Rs. 250/- by way of compensation, this appeal is preferred by the complainant.

THE case of the complainant was that after his retirement from service he gave Vakalat and a sum of Rs. 130/- to the opposite party for filing a case before the Labour Court. But the opposite party did not file the case till the date of the complaint on some pretext or other. Hence the complaint was filed for refund of Rs. 130/- and for compensation of Rs. 250/- and expenses and for mental agony in all a sum of Rs.8130/-. The opposite party contested the claim on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, but admitted that the complainant had entrusted the case for filing before the Labour Court, Guntur for claiming some amount due from his ex-employer and paid a sum of Rs. 130/-. But the complainant has taken back the entire record and amount on 21.4.95 which was acknowledged by him on the docket. Subsequently with ulterior motive, the above complaint was filed to harass the opposite party.

Both the parties filed their affidavits and no documents were filed on behalf of the complainant. But on behalf of the opposite party Ex. B 1 was marked.

ON a consideration of the evidence, the District Forum found that the complainant worked as a composer in Swamy Saranam Ayyappa Printers, Lalapet, Guntur for four years and he was either removed or resigned from the service, and as he was entitled for certain emoluments, he approached the opposite party who is a practising Advocate to file a case before the Labour Court or DCL for recovery of the amount. The entrustment of the papers and Vakalat by the Complainant to the opposite party was on 8.6.94 and the complainant paid Rs. 130/- towards fee. But the opposite party did not file any case either before the Labour Court or before the Labour Tribunal on behalf of the complainant. But Ex. B 1 docket dated 21.4.95 shows that the complainant has taken away the record and the amount of Rs. 100/-. The District Forum found that the opposite party has categorically admitted in his version that the complainant paid him Rs. 130/- toward fee, but did not accept his version that he returned the entire amount. But Ex. B 1 shows that he refunded only Rs. 100/-. As the opposite party failed to file a case on behalf of the complainant before the Labour Court during the period from 8.6.94 till 21.4.95 there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and that therefore the complainant is entitled for payment of compensation of Rs. 250/- and also refund of Rs. 130/-. In this appeal, it is submitted by party-in- person that the District Forum atleast should have granted a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- being the loss sustained by the complainant. According to him the claim against the employer is approximately near to Rs. 5,000/-. As the opposite party failed to file the case, the District Forum should have directed the opposite party to pay the said amount. We are not inclined to agree with this contention.

IT is evident that by the date of filing of the complaint, the opposite party returned the bundle. There is no material on record to show that the complainant took immediate steps for filing the case or that it became time barred when the bundle was returned by the opposite party. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the District Forum rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 250/-. By way of expenses and compensation. We, therefore do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.