C.S.SARMA vs P.VENKATALAKSHMI

THE opposite party in CD 415/93 District Forum, East Godavari filed this appeal questioning the order of the District Forum, whereby it directed the opposite party i.e. appellant herein to refund an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 5.5.94, Rs. 500/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 200/- towards costs.

THE respondent in this appeal filed the above complaint stating that she paid a sum of Rs. 4.500/- on one occasion and Rs. 3,200/- on another occasion and Rs. 500/- on 1.10.1990 and the balance of amount for making a total of Rs. 15,000/- to the opposite party i.e. Advocate for the purpose of filing a suit in respect of a building on her behalf in Rajahmundry. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party did not file suit and when she pressed for repayment of the amount, he issued a cheque for Rs. 4,500/- against the Andhra Bank Employees Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rajahmundry which was dishonoured as there was no amount. He also issued a cheque for Rs. 4,500/- against the State Bank of Hyderabad, which was also dishonoured for the same reason as evidenced by endorsements dated 11.6.92 and 13.6.92 respectively, as the opposite party failed to pay the said amount of Rs. 15,000/-, the above complaint was filed seeking a direction in that regard. The opposite party filed a counter denying the receipt of Rs. 15,000/- from the complainant. He admitted that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 3,200 /- to him 10 years ago when she was involved in an unforeseen and unfortunate matters and he appeared and argued the case and she was relieved from the said troubles and the said amount was appropriated towards the fee and other expenses. It is the further case of the opposite party that taking advantage of the receipt with her, she foisted the present case with false allegations. The opposite party admitted that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 500/- on 1.10.1990 with specific direction that he has to file a suit on her behalf in the name of Routhu Nagaraju and he entrusted the same to another Advocate of Rajahmundry who filed OS 519/90 on the file of Prl. District Munsiff Court, Rajahmundry. But the same was dismissed for default in the year 1994. Taking advantage of the undated receipt for Rs. 3,200/-, the complainant started blackmailing the opposite party threatening to report the matter to the Bar Council and harass him, even though she is not legally entitled to claim the amount, the opposite party issued a post-dated cheque on 13.1.1992 which was dishonoured. It is the further case of the opposite party that the complainant gave a full quit receipt in her own handwritten dated 16.9.92 to the opposite party, and the claim if any is barred by limitation.

On behalf of the complainant Exs. A-l to A-6 were marked and no oral evidence was adduced by both the parties.

IT is to be seen from para 4 of the District Forum order that during the pendency of the CD "it was reported that the matter was adjusted for Rs. 8,000/- but even that amount was not paid", the request for adjournment was not accepted by the District Forum as the matter was underwent a number of adjournments. On a consideration of the documents on record, the District Forum held that it is the Advocate that has been taking undue advantage of the helplessness of the complainant and the very circumstance that he issued two cheques which were dishonoured, go to show as to what extent the Advocate is prepared to go, if accordingly rejected the version of the opposite party and directed payment of Rs. 15,000/- with interest, compensation of Rs. 500/- and costs of Rs. 200/-.

IN this appeal preferred, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complainant paid Rs. 4,500/- and Rs. 500/- and also the balance of the amount making out the payment of Rs. 15,000/- to the appellant and hence in the absence of any evidence to show that the complainant paid a consideration of Rs. 15,000/- to the appellant for rendering any service, there is no deficiency of service on his part. We are not inclined to agree with this contention. Even assuming the version of the appellant that an amount of Rs. 3,200/- was paid long ago and he appropriated the same towards his fee and other expenses with her consent and that payment of Rs. 500/- on 1.10.1990 to file a suit on her behalf in the name of Routhu Nagaraju which was entrusted to another Advocate and that suit OS 519/90 was filed, yet there is no explanation as to why the opposite party issued two cheques for Rs. 4,500/- each. If the opposite party filed necessary suits and appropriated the amounts towards the fee etc., there is no need for him to pay a sum of Rs. 9,000/- by way of cheques. It is not disputed by the opposite party that he issued two cheques. But he merely stated that the complainant has taken undue advantage of possession of the receipt of Rs. 3,200/- and Rs. 500/-. Even assuming that the version of the opposite party is correct, in which event he would have issued a cheque for only Rs. 3,700/-. This also cannot be accepted as according to the opposite party an amount of Rs. 3,200/- was received 10 years ago when a suit was filed and appropriated the amount towards fee, and also a sum of Rs. 500/-. Having regard to the circumstance that the opposite party issued two cheques in favour of the complainant show that he owed a sum of I Rs. 9,000/- to the complainant. We, therefore, hold that the opposite party is liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 9,000/- with interest from 5.5.94 i.e. date of complaint till payment and modify the order of the District Forum by reducing the amount from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 9,000/-. In other respect the order of the District Forum is confirmed. It is not out of place to mention that during the pendency of the appeal interim stay was granted on condition of petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 9,000/- and the complainant was allowed to withdraw the same. If the complainant has already withdrawn the said sum of Rs. 9,000/- the same would be taken into consideration towards the amount directed to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant in this appeal.

THE appeal is accordingly disposed of, there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal disposed of.